Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Planning Legislation

Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review legislation relating to planning and development in Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): The need for changes to planning legislation is kept under constant review. The Planning and Compensation Bill now before the House will introduce various alterations to make the planning system in England and Wales fairer and more efficient.

Mr. Smith: What does the Minister plan to do to stop the flagrant abuse of planning laws that has allowed the Vale of Glamorgan borough council to do a deal with local developers, which has resulted in the developers becoming millionaires overnight and in the people of Barry losing one of the last remaining open spaces in the town? Will the Minister consider calling in the plans for College fields in Barry? Will he introduce legislation to prevent councils from giving themselves planning permission when they either own land or have an unhealthy financial interest in it, to prevent that sort of thing from happening again?

Mr. Bennett: I do not want to comment on the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman. The request for a call-in is being considered and I hope to give a decision shortly.

Mr. Raffan: Is my hon. Friend aware that in his farewell speech to Delyn borough council planning committee, the highly respected chief planning officer Mr. Mike Smith warned the committee that increasingly it was acting against officers' recommendations, contrary to its own clearly laid down planning policies and contrary to the principles of equity and fairness? Does my hon. Friend share my concern about those serious allegiations and will he take them into consideration in his constant reviewing?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear me say that I have not come across the speech to which he referred. Local authorities, in response to the needs of local people, must consider carefully the way in which they deal with planning applications. I am sure that when the local electorate decides how to vote in this week's elections it will consider the council's record in the past four years.

Health Service

Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairmen of health authorities in Wales to discuss the level of expenditure provision for the health service in Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I met health authority chairmen on 31 January and I hope to do so again in the near future.

Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State is aware that both my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and I have been pressing him hard in recent years about the construction of the new East Glamorgan hospital. Can he confirm that he is going ahead with it and that we will have those new resources for the Rhondda and Taff-Ely area?

Mr. Hunt: I am happy to confirm that today I approved plans for two new district general hospitals to be built for


the national health service in Wales at a cost of more than £130 million. I have approved proposals by the Mid Glamorgan health authority to build a new hospital on land at Ynys-Y-Plwm near Llantrisant and by West Glamorgan health authority to build one at Baglan moors, Port Talbot.

Mr. Foot: When the right hon. Gentleman sees what an almighty botch his fellow Ministers are making of the national health service in England, will he work on the simple principle "Go thou and do otherwise"?

Mr. Hunt: Not at all. As Ministers responsible for health, we work closely together throughout the United Kingdom. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have done a small calculation. If the national health service in Wales was now spending the amount that it was spending when the Labour party was last in government, at 1992 prices, the total amount spent in Wales would be £1,104 million. That appears to be a reasonable sum, until it is compared with the amount that the Government are spending in the coming year, which is £1,719 million. I have to ask the Opposition where the £615 million cuts would have been imposed. How many hospitals would have been closed if the Opposition were still in office?

Mr. Gwilym Jones: At last Wednesday's meeting of the Welsh Select Committee, we took evidence from medical academics. The chief witness, a statistician, told us that it is not possible to construct a mathematical formula to use waiting lists meaningfully and that the only worthwhile statistic is the number of patients being treated in Wales each year. If we were to move to the spending levels practised by the Opposition would that not mean a cut in the 700,000 patients being treated each year in Wales?

Mr. Hunt: That is right. It is about time that the Labour party, instead of throwing accusations at the Government, answered these clear questions. The number of people treated by the national health service in Wales is at an all-time record. In the year to June 1990, 472,000 in-patients and 2,300,000 out-patients received treatment and diagnosis. Since 1979, the number of in-patients treated is up by 36·6 per cent., the number of out-patients by 29·8 per cent. and the number of day cases by a staggering 246 per cent.

Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome the building of two new hospitals in Wales. My hon. Friends have worked hard to persuade the Secretary of State and his predecessors to build those hospitals.
Bearing in mind the proposed staff losses and cuts in patient services at Guy's hospital, will the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to opposing any bids by health authorities or hospitals to opt out?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has scored another spectacular own goal in attacking the Government's record on the health service in Wales, and he has not answered the question that I posed to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). If we still had a Labour Government, that Government would be spending £650 million less. I am proud of my record and that of my right hon. Friends in Wales, where we are now spending £602 for every man, woman and child.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest figures for unemployment in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: There were 12,364 and 108,049.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Those figures are horrendous.
The right hon. Gentleman had to cancel his visit to north Wales recently. However, I am sure that he had time to read the front page of tile Denbighshire Free Press, which outlined the job losses in Boral Edenhall and ML Lifeguard. Will he consider pressing for regional development status for large areas in Wales to obtain European money to put matters right?

Mr. Hunt: I had the opportunity to meet Commissioner Millan last week. I reinforced the case, which I believe is strong, for Wales to continue to receive grants at the record level that it has been receiving them from the Community under this Government. As for the future of Wales, I wish that the doom and gloom merchants on the Opposition Benches would stop trying to talk down Wales, and would join the rest of us in talking up our prospects.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in recent months, the town of Holyhead has suffered considerably as a result of the loss of jobs in its port. Some money has been made available to improve the environment of the town, but little has been done in recent years to ensure that money is given for job creation. What plans has he or the Minister of State to improve the situation in Holyhead?

Mr. Hunt: I greatly regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman has chosen not to take this opportunity to welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I believe that that appointment has been widely welcomed in Holyhead. During my visit there, when the hon. Gentleman was present, I received the message that there needed to be greater co-ordination of all the programmes affecting Ynys Môn and Holyhead. That is what my hon. Friend the Minister is now so competently doing.

Mr. Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that inward investment continues apace, and that real new jobs are being created?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, inward investment is reaching new record levels in Wales. I am delighted to be able to announce today six new projects involving £5 million in industrial investment. The six projects are backed by financial assistance from the Government, and range from telecommunications to climbing equipment. They include investment from German and Portuguese companies.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Secretary of State admit that unemployment in Wales is escalating right out of control, resulting in misery, heartache, degradation and domestic upheaval? Is he aware that the training and enterprise councils in Wales have created considerable unemployment in the past couple of months? Is he aware that my early-day motion 546 called for a parliamentary inquiry into Mid Glamorgan TECs where finances and appointments have gone astray? A thorough investigation is needed, because thousands of trainers and trainees have


been put on the dole as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's action. Will he set up that necessary public inquiry? If not, is it because this matter is too hot for him to handle?

Mr. Hunt: One day, the hon. Gentleman will recognise what most people in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom already recognize—that Wales has a marvellous system of training and enterprise councils. Wales was the first part of the United Kingdom where they were put into operation and they are doing a marvellous job. I congratulate everyone connected with the TEC movement on the work that they are doing. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics, I hope that he will observe one in which I take great pride: that in the past four years, long-term unemployment has gone down by 69 per cent.—from 78,014 in January 1986 to 24,020 in January 1991.

Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman may wish to congratulate the six Welsh companies that have been given the Queen's award for industry, but, with unemployment rising at its fastest since the last Conservative recession, will he end his hesitant approach and bring forward a package of measures to help the Welsh unemployed? Does the Secretary of State back the Treasury or the Department of Employment in their dispute over special employment measures? It is far too glib of him to say that Wales is bucking the trend. There are far too many redundancies for that.

Mr. Hunt: I have already announced this year 1,600 new jobs involving £80 million of new investment, to which I am pleased that the Government are contributing £13·5 million. Today, Iansing Linde, the Voice Processing Company Ltd. in Abergavenny, Lucas Meyer, Riverside Plastics, Honkley Engineering and Marine Company and HB Climbing Equipment are all announcing new investment projects. It is about time that the Opposition paid tribute to that.

Health Authorities

Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the performance of the new health authorities in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The annual review of district health authorities in the autumn will provide a major opportunity to assess authorities' performance in their new role as purchasers of health care. This will be backed up by rigorous monthly monitoring of in-year performance against the targets set in district health authorities' purchasing plans.

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Minister is in favour of setting up the trust fund scheme in the national health service. Is he in a position to say how many hospitals in Wales have been consulted and how many he believes will opt for the new scheme? If he is, can he give an assurance to all Welsh hospital employees and to the people of Wales that it will not result in redundancies at the same rate as was announced last week for Guy's hospital and other hospitals in England?

Mr. Bennett: So far, the Pembrokeshire district health authority has expressed interest in becoming a national health service hospital trust. That authority is balloting its

staff on the application. As for the hon. Gentleman's wider remarks, no Government can ever give a guarantee about the future and no party can ever say that the same financial disciplines as operate in the rest of the world will not operate in the national health service. That means that the NHS has to operate within the budget that is set for it at the beginning of each year.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Under-Secretary will recollect that over 18 months ago, his Department and the health authority set up an inquiry into the future of the casualty unit in Swansea. At a very constructive meeting, the hon. Gentleman told me that he intended to make an announcement before the end of the last financial year. As 30,000 signatures appear on a petition that was presented to his Department, will he bear in mind that there will be great bitterness if eventually it emerges that the reason for the delay—a delay that he had not anticipated—is that the announcement might harm his party in next Thursday's local elections?

Mr. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is a matter of great concern to the people of Swansea and that is why we are considering the points that have been made most seriously. The right hon. Gentleman presented me with a petition of 30,000 signatures. I visited the unit myself and during that visit I received a deputation. We are now considering further representations. It is taking longer because we are consulting so widely. I hope to reach a decision shortly, but the plans were put forward by the West Glamorgan health authority.

Mr. Hain: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that a new hospital will be built for Neath and Port Talbot. It is long overdue and I congratulate the health unions, the community health council and local people for the way in which they have campaigned for many years to persuade the Welsh Office to support that new project. However, I remind the Secretary of State that there remains a deep health crisis in the area. For example, a constituent of mine who has been waiting 19 months for a cataract operation in Gwaun-cae-gurwen has been told that he will have to wait a further three months. The 1,400 patients on that waiting list are still waiting and the health authority has been told that it does not have the funding to meet that desperate need. When will the Government provide the necessary resources?

Mr. Bennett: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I am grateful to him for his support for the new hospital. We greatly regret the increase in the waiting lists, but it is part of the success of the national health service that, because new technologies and treatments are becoming available and people are living longer, more people are being treated. That is an important fact to remember. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about his constituent, I shall write to him about the matter, but we have set up three sub-regional treatment centres, one of which is for cataract operations.

Energy Savings

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much energy has been saved by the Welsh Office in each of the last five years; and what measures are being taken to make further savings for the future.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Energy consumption information is not available in a form that enables us to identify specific savings made in the years before 1990–91. Measures include the acquisition of a computer database to monitor performance, high efficiency lighting, water control and separate metering in the main headquarters buildings in Cathays park, and we aim to reduce energy expenditure by 15 per cent. over five years.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that reply and for the measures being taken. However, the Government still reveal complacency when estimates using current technology and getting a return on investment show potential savings of at least 20 per cent. Therefore, the Minister's targets are well below those accepted elsewhere. Will the Minister review his programme with a view to making further savings in the Welsh Office and in other authorities in Wales where the Welsh Office has some influence?

Mr. Bennett: It is a bit tough to be accused of complacency when the Government have set up a special ministerial working party which constantly examines ways to save money in the Government's estate and when the Welsh Office is top of the league. We are No. 1 and we are working very hard to make sure that we have energy efficiency. That message is getting across not only in Government buildings but in schools and hospitals. The health service in Wales has already saved a considerable amount of money on energy efficiency.

Voluntary Organisations (Grants)

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants from his Department to voluntary organisations in each of the past three years.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The latest available figures, at outturn prices, are £8·96 million in 1987–88, £9·35 million in 1988–89 and £11·66 million in 1989–90, a real terms increase of some 14 per cent. over the period.

Mr. Knox: By how much have grants increased in Wales since 1979 and how many organisations are in receipt of grants?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that since 1979–80 Welsh Office support has trebled in real terms, and some 320 voluntary bodies now benefit. It is the Government's policy to have a healthy and vigorous voluntary sector.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has decided what proportion of the new local government charge in Wales will be levied on property tax; and what proportion will be poll tax.

Mr. David Hunt: The question does not arise, because I have already announced that I propose to abolish the community charge in Wales.

Mr. Williams: In his statement last week on the new council tax, the Secretary of State said that there will be transitional relief for people facing excessive increases under the new structure. Will the beneficiaries be the people who live in large houses, who benefited so unfairly

from the poll tax? Does it make sense to continue to subsidise the better-off? Does the Minister accept that the poll tax punished the poor, whereas under the new structure banding and transitional relief will protect the rich?

Mr. Hunt: No. Transitional relief should be available under any new system, and we have made that absolutely clear. People in Wales would lose only if we returned to the old rating system. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the figures that I have published, which show that in 1989–90—when Welsh people last paid rates—people paid on average £327. For this year, it would have had to increase to £385. In the coming year, the average bill per household for the new council tax will be £152. That is much fairer and better for the people of Wales.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the figures are available in the Vote Office, as I have experienced some difficulty in obtaining them? English Members may be upset to see that people on the highest rate in England are paying £668, but those in Wales are paying only £272. The bottom rate in Wales is £109, but is £267 in England. Is there any justification for Welsh people, who have lower costs of living, being subsidised by English taxpayers?

Mr. Hunt: I understand that there has been rather a run on these exemplifications. According to my hon. Friend, the Vote Office has run out of copies, but as soon as I leave the Chamber, I shall ensure that further copies are made available. Under the Government, and only under the Government, Wales has had the best possible deal. Under a Labour Government, not only would we return to the unfair old rating system, with 1973 values and a complete revaluation, but average bills would leap up because we would be returning to the old Labour way of funding local services.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State confirm the view expressed last week by the Secretary of State for the Environment that we shall be stuck with the poll tax for the next three years because the council tax in Wales cannot be introduced until the financial year 1994–95

Mr. Hunt: That is not true. I had a positive and constructive meeting with the Assembly of Welsh County Councils and the Association of Welsh Districts. Consultation is well on course to introduce the council tax in Wales the year after next.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we have achieved the Wandsworth effect in parts of Wales only because of the intervention of my right hon. Friend and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? No one in Wales will be worse off this year under the new council tax, compared with the community charges that were to be imposed by Liberal and Labour councils in Wales.

Mr. Hunt: That is true. The message on Thursday is simple for the people of Wales. If they vote Conservative, their councils will cost them less and they will get better services.

Mr. Murphy: As the Welsh people will have to put up with the poll tax for at least another two or three years, and as the Conservative party is squabbling about the nature of the new tax and its banding arrangements, does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that, despite being


surrounded by English colleagues, he should accept a uniquely Welsh solution to the poll tax by listening to the people of Wales, who overwhelmingly believe in a fair rates system and immediate abolition of the poll tax?

Mr. Hunt: I said that we are used to spectacular own goals by the Labour party, but we have just heard the best. The hon. Gentleman admitted that there is no prospect of a Labour Government when he said that the poll tax will remain in Wales for three years. In any event, that is untrue. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the answer that I gave a few moments ago, he would know that we are well on course to introduce the new council tax the year after next.
If people read "Fair Rates", they will not only remember that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) once called rates the most unjust form of all taxes but see that the proposed rates system would involve going straight back to the old registers, which were introduced in 1973, and then having a complete revaluation. That would be bad news for the whole of Wales.

Waiting Lists, Clwyd

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the amount of Welsh Office funding made available to Clwyd health authority over the last five years to reduce waiting lists.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Since the inception of the waiting times initiative in 1986, Clwyd health authority has received funding of over £330,000 to assist its own efforts in tackling waiting lists.

Mr. Raffan: Why has Clwyd health authority received only that amount out of a total of £5·35 million for reducing waiting lists in Wales? Is my hon. Friend aware that that constitutes a little over 5 per cent. of the total amount, whereas Clwyd health authority covers 14 per cent. of the population in Wales, its in-patient waiting list has increased by 9·2 per cent. on last year and its out-patient waiting list has increased by 10·6 per cent. on last year?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend forgets that out of the sum for the waiting times initiative comes the funding for the three treatment centres, which take up the largest proportion of the available money. Since 1979 in Clwyd, the number of in-patients treated, including day cases, has risen by 45 per cent. and the number of out-patients treated by 21 per cent. This year, we increased Clwyd health authority's budget by 9·8 per cent. Since 1979, the health authority's total increase has been 50 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister assure us that any increase in the funding available to Clwyd health authority will not be swallowed up by additional administrative costs? That is happening in Gwynedd, where, over the next two months, no fewer than 56 additional posts will be created—for example, for contract officers and business managers—at a cost of £800,000 a year. That finance needs to be at the sharp end to provide services for the people on waiting lists.

Mr. Bennett: It is important that health authorities operate within a properly managed system. That is why we

have introduced reforms. They mean that people must keep track of how money is spent, so that we do not have health authorities running out of money two thirds of the way through the year because they have not been managed properly. Sixty-three per cent. of our staff are front-line staff, compared with 57 per cent. in 1979.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is not it true that in Clwyd health authority, as in all health authorities in Wales, the health service is grossly underfunded compared with virtually every other western European country? Is not it time that the Minister gave a commitment that not a single health authority in Wales will run out of money by the end of this financial year and that a general practitioner can continue to refer his or her patients to any hospital in the country? Will the hon. Gentleman give a commitment that all the health authorities and GPs will be funded and will not run out of money?

Mr. Bennett: I cannot give that commitment—any more than the Leader of the Opposition could on the "Walden" programme yesterday when challenged on this matter. If we were to run the health service at the last Labour Government's expenditure level, £650 million less would be spent. Under the Conservative Government, spending on the health service has increased by 56 per cent. in real terms.

Prefabricated Houses, Swansea

Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the assistance he will provide to Swansea city council to enable it to deal with the problem of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I have today announced an extra £4·29 million to 10 Welsh housing authorities to assist them in dealing with prefabricated reinforced concrete houses. I am pleased to say that the bid from Swansea city council for the reinstatement of private sector PRCs in the city will be met in full.

Mr. Anderson: That welcome reply covers only part of the matter. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the assistance covers post-April 1984 houses? Do the Government accept Swansea city council's strategy for dealing with PRC houses—on the basis of the consultant's report, which advises covering the 1,301 houses over five years? Will the hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider Swansea city council's proposals—I confess that they have not yet been submitted to the Welsh Office—for additional funding to deal with PRC houses to ensure that money is available not just for those houses but for other sectors of housing in the city? Will he ensure that grants are available for refurbishment and site clearance? That is clearly the responsibility of the city council, not the housing associations.

Mr. Bennett: I welcome the fact that Swansea city council's strategy involves working with housing associations and I shall certainly give sympathetic consideration to any further bids made by the city council. Clearly, however, I cannot make a pre-judgment on that and we shall consider resources when bids are made.

Rail Travel (Safety)

Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the state of the rail network in Wales, including aspects of safety.

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to improve safety of rail travel in Wales.

Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail at regular intervals to discuss a range of issues. They last met on 8 February and expect to do so again later this year. British Rail's plans for maintaining and improving its safety record are set out in its safety plan, which was published in February.

Mr. Davies: The Minister of State may be aware that recently a young constituent of mine, who was coming home on leave from the Navy, fell to his death from a train between Newport and Cardiff. I do not wish to comment on the details of that case, but does the Minister agree that there is a considerable impression—based on observation—that British Rail staff are unable to ensure that train doors are shut tight before a train leaves a station? Does he further agree that if someone falls from a train when a door is not defective and has not been opened from the inside, the only reasonable conclusion is that the door was not shut tight at the preceding station?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I know of the specific case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers and we extend our sympathy to the young man's family. I cannot comment on that particular case, but the provisional figures for passenger fatalities caused by falls from trains in 1990 was 19, the same as it was for the previous two years. We have received coroners' reports on 11 of those 19 cases and none of the 11 deaths was caused by faulty door locks. From 1985 to 1989 there was no evidence of faulty doors resulting in one such death.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that it is a sad state of affairs that a leading newspaper, for example, can point out that there may have been more than 100 deaths during the past six years, which were not explained, by people falling out of trains? If doors can be opened during a journey, does he agree that we should be well advised to consider other systems of ensuring that doors remain locked and that passengers cannot open them? Will he ask British Rail what proposals it has for incorporating such a design feature into new rolling stock and whether it will modify existing rolling stock to ensure that doors do not open during journeys?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I assure the hon. Gentleman that independent consultants were appointed by British Rail and they concluded that train doors are safe. Their report has been considered by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, which will decide whether further action is necessary. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman that British Rail investigates fully every fall from a train and its report and that from the coroner's inquest are made available to Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. Even if a door is not closed properly, there is a safety catch device which prevents it from opening.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the draft Labour Budget produced by the right hon.

and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) there was not one extra penny for investment in the railway system and that the best way to get more money invested in the railway is to privatise it so that, like other privatised industries, it can go into the marketplace and obtain other capital investment?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Although that is technically a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I assure my hon. Friend that there have been no financial constraints on safety expenditure. The Government endorsed in full expenditure of £70 million on additional safety measures in 1990–91 and British Rail plans to spend more than £300 million over the next three years. Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that the privatisation of British Rail is much to be desired.

Community Charge Rebate Scheme

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received (a) in favour and (b) in opposition to the Welsh community charge rebate scheme for the coming year.

Mr. David Hunt: There were 126, expressing a variety of views.

Mr. Flynn: I am not very grateful for that evasion. May I point out to the Secretary of State that since he has been so generous in confessing that the presented demented system of reliefs in Wales is his brainchild, the system has become known as the "David Hunt levy". Will he give a guarantee that in the unlikely event that he is still in office in a year's time, my constituents in Bassaleg, Rhiwderin, Rogerstone, Allt-yr-yn and Caerleon, who now pay £50 more on the David Hunt levy than do their neighbours in other parts of Newport, will be compensated and that the crazy system will be ended?

Mr. Hunt: This is another own goal by the hon. Gentleman. We are talking about a system that brought an additional £62 million to Wales. That means—I have to whisper this because of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset (Mr. Bruce)—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here."] What a relief. The average community charge paid in Wales this year will be £92 and that is before rebate. The hon. Gentleman should ask the Leader of the Opposition to confess that as well as the national health service not having a high priority in Labour party plans, local government does not have a high priority either. We may go back to the system of support that existed when there was last a Labour Government, which is very bad news for the people of Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Unless something has arisen during Question Time which requires my immediate attention, I take points of order later.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I know that I did not call the hon. Gentleman, but that is not a matter for a point of order. I will take the point of order later.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Gulf War Church Service, Glasgow

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, whether they will be officially represented at the service at St. Mungo's cathedral, Glasgow, on 4 May in relation to the Gulf war.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): No, Sir, although each Church of England diocesan bishop attending is a Church Commissioner.

Mr. Dalyell: Whereas it is quite proper that service men and their families should want to give thanks for their safe return, is it really in good taste that politicians should be present, given that the Kurds are in the mountains, the Shias are in the marshes, the war is clearly not over, Karbala and Najaf are in ruins and the United Nations has disowned the whole project?

Mr. Alison: The old Church of England litany—I know that we are talking about the Church of Scotland—prays for divine deliverance from lightning and tempest, from plague, pestilence and famine and from battle, murder and sudden death. Many hundreds of young men in our forces in the Gulf will have echoed that prayer for deliverance, as will many thousands of their loved ones and hon. Members of all parties. Most people will feel that it is no bad thing that the survivors and their families and the hon. Members responsible for sending them to the Gulf should express their thanksgiving for their safe return in a religious service that will also remember the fallen.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that those of us who lost young men from our constituencies during the war recognise the importance of the service for their families? We welcome especially the fact that it will be an ecumenical service. That does not mean that any of us who attends will forget the problems that confront the Kurds and the Shi'ites in Iraq.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments which, perhaps not proportionately to the strength of her party in the House, represent the overwhelming view of most Scotsmen, Englishmen, Welshmen and Irishmen of the merits of the service.

Sir John Stokes: Are not we an extraordinary nation in that when we are to have a service such as this, at which church and state are to be fully represented, some seek to run it down in this House, which is supposed to represent most people in the country? Surely we should be thankful that the service is to be held and thankful to God that our men came back safely.

Mr. Alison: I thoroughly endorse my hon. Friend's view, although I should pay the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) the credit that I am sure is his due. He will have been invited, he has a military past and I very much hope that he will take the opportunity to attend the service.

Women Commissioners

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church Commissioners are women.

Mr. Alison: Six, Sir.

Mr. Banks: That is a disgracefully small number given that, by my calculations, there are about 95 commissioners. Should not the right hon. Gentleman put pressure on the Church Commissioners to ensure that women are more adequately represented on the body? The Church is talking about having women priests. I support that principle and see no reason why we should not have women bishops or, indeed, a woman Pope—although I realise that the right hon. Gentleman does not answer for the Catholic religion. In the circumstances, would not it look much better for the Church if it had more women commissioners to start with?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has launched into a typical diatribe—as usual without having done adequate research. Of the total of 95 commissioners, 43 are diocesan bishops and it is no fault of the Church of England that there are no women bishops at present. Of the remainder of the commissioners, more than half are elected by the general assembly of the general synod of the Church of England. That electoral process produces as few women as the Labour party's electoral process produces women in the Labour party.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

Staff Pay and Conditions

Mr. Skinner: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, whether he proposes any changes to the procedures for setting pay and conditions for House of Commons staff; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commissioners): No, Sir. There is a statutory responsibility imposed on the Commission by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 to keep the pay and grading of staff in the House broadly in line with those in the home civil service.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on average, the staff in the canteen work for 47 hours a week and receive take-home pay of about £134? We should compare that with the bosses, who have recently managed to secure an extra 22·7 per cent. Tesco's boss is to get another £1 million a year, for example. Yet here in the House of Commons, the young people in the canteen are expected to work during the parliamentary recess, when Members of Parliament are on holiday, and this year they will have to work an extra five hours every week during the recess for no extra pay. Is not it time that the hon. Gentleman—this Liberal Democrat—did something about that?

Mr. Beith: The arrangements that I have described were set up when a Labour Government were in power. The House of Commons Commission seeks to represent all parties in the House. We have no responsibility for pay outside the House and our responsibility inside it is to


ensure the link with civil service pay to which I referred. However, the Establishments Office is currently consulting the relevant unions as part of the process of conducting a review of the pay and grading of industrial and non-industrial grades employed by Departments of the House.

Telephone Bill

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the House of Commons telephone bill for the last 12 months.

Mr. Beith: The estimated cost of telecommunications services for the House in the last financial year is £2,169,982.

Mr. Banks: I am sure that we get great benefit from that expenditure, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a considerable number of complaints about the telephone services that we receive. This is not a criticism of the staff, but those outside—our constituents and others who try to contact us—are always complaining about the time that it takes for the telephones to be answered. That is British Telecom's responsibility because BT sends in the people to staff the switchboard. Clearly, it is not doing the job properly. I am not in favour of Mercury and I was certainly not in favour of the privatisation of BT. However, now that BT has been privatised, cannot we consider the alternatives? For example, Mercury says that it can produce a saving of £50,000 a year and provide a better service. The hon. Gentleman should get off his behind and do something, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggested.

Mr. Beith: The running of telecommunications services is a matter for the Services Committee. I understand that, some time ago, the Committee considered a request to allow Mercury to provide a share of the outgoing lines, but recommended no change. However, the matter is still under consideration. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are Mercury call-boxes within the precincts of the House.

Crèche

Mr. Cohen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what latest consideration he has given for the provision of crèche facilities for staff.

Mr. Beith: At its meeting on 13 February the Services Committee approved in principle the provision of child care facilities for Members, their staff and staff of the House. The House of Commons Commission has agreed that an examination should now take place to identify what accommodation could be allocated for that purpose and has instructed that further steps should be set in train to determine the likely costs and other financial implications. Once these are known, a survey of potential demand will be undertaken and a final decision taken on whether to proceed.

Mr. Cohen: I welcome the very belated decision of the Services Committee to agree in principle to the provision of child-care facilities. The hon. Gentleman will recall a feasibility study which indicated that there was not the

necessary political will to provide a crèche. Can we be assured that that is no longer the case and that all existing accommodation will be scrutinised? The matter should not be left for the phase 2 programme some time in the next century. Staff members and their trade unions are asking whether the hon. Gentleman is serious about the provision of a crèche, or whether he is just toying with the idea.

Mr. Beith: I am certainly in favour of the House proceeding quickly to the establishment of these facilities. However, the Services Committee is responsible for seeing whether, in our very crowded building, suitable accommodation can be found in advance of phase 2. Obviously that is important if rapid progress is to be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

British Members of the European Parliament

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to allow greater involvement in the House and its Committees by British Members of the European Parliament.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Active consideration is currently being given to ways in which British Members of the European Parliament can have improved access to the House. The relevant Sub-Committees of the Services Committee have been instructed to consider what refreshment facilities can be extended to them, and to what degree they may be given formal access to the Chamber and to Committees of the House. I hope to receive some recommendations shortly.

Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us who support the democratic role of the House and recognise its importance would regard it as being of great value if members of the European Parliament were able to speak, but not vote, in our Committees—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—so that we might have much earlier warning of what happens in the European Parliament? Would not that be in the interests of this House? [Interruption.] What do we have to be afraid of?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will be aware that his suggestion has turned out to be somewhat controversial, at least among hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment. However, I agree that it is right to explore ways in which closer exchanges might take place. In the context of the intergovernmental conference on political union, it is important to remember that this House is one of the most active legislative bodies when it comes to scrutinising European Community legislation. We want to see a similar situation elsewhere and that will involve some degree of co-operation.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware of the standards that Members of the European Parliament enjoy? If he is thinking about inviting them to share our dining facilities, he will have to ensure that the standard of the food in this place is greatly improved. I have been a Member of Parliament for 20 years and the menu in the Harcourt Room has not changed once in that time.

Mr. MacGregor: I think that the menu has changed. The question of access to our refreshment facilities, particularly some of those that are available to hon.


Members, is currently being considered by the Sub-Committee. I do not think that relative standards are being taken into account; the question under consideration is access.

Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend say why legislators in this House should be expected to pool their facilities with an advisory body?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that there is any question of pooling facilities. Given that Members of the British Parliament have access to facilities of the European Parliament, the question is whether some facilities here may be made available to Members of the European Parliament with a view to widening the exchange of views.

Environment Debates

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what percentage of parliamentary lime has been spent on debating the problem of the national and global environment in each of the Sessions of the current Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: It is not possible to estimate the amount of time spent on environmental matters in the House because of the variety of opportunities for debate. The House is already clear about the priority which the Government are giving to such matters.

Mr. Hughes: That is a very convenient cop-out of an answer, if I may say so. The reality is that the Department of the Environment spent most of its time ensuring that the House debated poll tax, son of poll tax or grandchild of poll tax. As a result, little Government time was spent on environmental issues. Will the Leader of the House accept that as a fact? Will he consider seriously allowing the House to establish the precedent of an annual debate, as part of the routine of the House, on the state of the global, continental and national environment?

Mr. MacGregor: Attention to local government finance has not been confined to the Government side of the Chamber. Both sides of the House have focused their attention on it and the issue has been raised outside Government time. I accept, however, that the matter has been raised rather more extensively than others. I hope that we shall now see a greater concentration on other issues. The Government's proposals on local government finance have received a warm welcome from many quarters.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the extensive White Paper that the Government produced on environmental matters. We have already taken up almost 100 of the initiatives set out in it. That is a clear sign of the priority that we give to such matters and the way in which we act on them. We must be cautious about the number of commitments that we give to annual debates on various subjects. I should be happy, however, to see further debates on environmental matters when they can be fitted into the time table.

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Select Committee on the Environment has been extremely busy over some years trying to bring to the attention of the House, and to a wider audience, the problems that will be generated by global warming? Some months ago the Committee placed before the House a good report on the

problems that will arise from the decline of the jungles, but the House has not had an opportunity to debate it and does not seem likely to have one, unless someone gets a move on. The greatest threat that faces mankind is its destruction of its natural environment and the House should have an opportunity to debate it.

Mr. MacGregor: Let me assure my hon. Friend that we take all international environmental matters extremely seriously, as can be seen from the many initiatives that the Government have taken. Many matters have had to be dealt with during the Session, not least the Gulf war. It is not possible to have general debates on every subject, but many opportunities are available to hon. Members to raise matters of concern.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Leader of the House reflect on what was an unsatisfactory answer? Surely he cannot claim any longer that there is a shortage of parliamentary time. It is crystal clear to us all that the Government are having enormous difficulty filling up the time that is available during the run-in to the general election. If, as increasingly seems likely, there will be an extremely long run-in, with the Government running away, would not it be a good idea to have some set-piece televised debates on the environment, on unemployment, on the poll tax, on hospital trusts and on other issues that will confront the nation during the next general election?

Mr. MacGregor: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We are carrying through a larger legislative programme this Session than last, with more Bills coming before the House. As he will have seen from the timetable in recent weeks—he will certainly see it in weeks to come—there is a great deal to do on the legislative front and that work will take a great deal of parliamentary time.

European Standing Committees

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received calling for procedural changes to ensure that motions and amendments agreed by European Standing Committees are placed before the House for consideration: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: I have received no such representations other than those from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Government made it clear that the views of the Committees would not necessarily be reported to the House unless the Government found them acceptable, hardly anyone is bothering to attend the sittings of these rather irrelevant Committees? On Wednesday last week, only four Members were present at the end of the sitting. Is he aware also that a further crisis has arisen because Ministers are not reporting on the proposed legislation as it is? Instead, they are reporting on what they think it might be by the time that Committee considers it. On Wednesday, with a huge crisis looming for British potato crisps manufacture, which could lose 600 jobs in this country, there was not one word about the issue in the papers before the Committee or in the Government motion. Would not it be better to scrap the Committees rather than have a democratic front?

Mr. MacGregor: No, I do not think that it would be right to scrap the Committees. As I said at the outset, I believe that they are an effective way in which the House can carry out scrutiny. I have said that I am prepared to review those Committees, but I do not think that it would be right to scrap them.
With regard to my hon. Friend's point about Government motions before the House, he will know of one case about which he and I have corresponded. In that regard, the Government acted entirely in accordance with the Standing Orders. However, in view of my hon. Friend's concern, I have asked the House authorities to consider whether the Order Paper can make the position clearer in such cases, perhaps with the date of the resolution passed by the Standing Committee being printed in the Order Paper beside the Government motion. I am also considering further my hon. Friend's idea about how that may be changed.

Mr. Pike: Does the Leader of the House accept that all members of those European Committees believe that it is absolute nonsense that a motion agreed unanimously and as amended is reported to the House in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, but is then not the motion moved by the Government at a subsequent stage? The Committee then has the right to table an amendment, but not to speak to it or explain reasons. That is totally unsatisfactory and if no changes are made to the procedure, Members will refuse to attend those Committees.

Mr. MacGregor: I make it clear that that happened on only one occasion. The change was made because, as the Minister explained to all members of the Committee, the actual terms of the motion were, in the Government's view, inaccurate and did not represent the position. Therefore, on that occasion, the Government tabled a motion and it would have been possible for any member of the Committee to table an amendment. However, as I said,

I constantly review the way in which those Committees work and I am now considering whether this can be done differently if a similar situation arises in future.

European Community (Communications)

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a further statement on the extension of official telephone and postal facilities to hon. Members for contacts with the institutions of the European Community in Brussels and elsewhere, pursuant to his answer of 25 March, Official Report, column 607.

Mr. MacGregor: I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the House of Commons Commission has now approved arrangements to enable hon. Members to make free official telephone calls to institutions of the European Community and to certain other European organisations. A notice setting out the short direct dialling codes of the respective exchanges has already been sent to Members. Arrangements have also been approved to enable Members to send official mail free of charge to countries of the European Community. It is hoped that the service will be brought into use immediately after the spring recess.

Mr. Dykes: May I thank my right hon. Friend most warmly for his speed in handling those matters once he assumed his present office? At present, hon. Members can telphone Europe from their own offices. Will he ensure that we can use specific dial handsets in other parts of the Palace of Westminster as quickly as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The initial list of the extensions that may be dialled direct reflects the present capacity of the telephone exchange to accept such calls. However, the system will be upgraded within the next 12 months and that will provide increased capacity for further direct dialling to Europe. I am not sure whether that will make my hon. Friend's suggestion irrelevant, but I shall consider his suggestion. It is probably preferable to stick to the arrangements that we have already made.

NHS Trusts

Mr. Robin Cook: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the business plans for self-governing trusts and recently announced job losses.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): The prospectuses of the trusts were published last year. There were no "secret" business plans. The business plans, which are required to be returned to the national health service management executive in the early part of this year, are part of the arrangements for monitoring both NHS trusts and directly managed units by the national health service management executive. As management documents, they were never intended under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to be public documents. The annual report of each trust will of course be published.
That leads me to a wider point about accountability. For the first time, we now have a system in place where, through the contractual arrangements, hospitals will be fully accountable to the district health authorities for the quality and quantity of the services they provide for patients.
Within that reformed system my job is to ensure that patients have the access that they need to comprehensive, free, health care. I exercise this responsibility through a strengthened chain of accountability from districts through regions to the NHS management executive.
With this accountability for the provision of health care goes more delegated management freedom for the hospitals themselves, including directly managed units. It is not for Governments to tell hospitals how to organise their services and how many staff to employ. That must be a matter for the hospitals themselves. In a service that employs over 1 million people, it would be ludricous if Ministers or civil servants attempted to run the service from Whitehall.
What I sought last year, and will seek this year when examining trust applications, is a management team which will match in professionalism the professional standards of the doctors and nurses themselves. For far too long we have had outstanding clinical professionalism allied to second-rate management systems. One cause of that over the years has been the political intervention in what are properly management decisions, of which this bogus pre-local elections row, stirred up by the Opposition parties, is a classic example.
Referring to the situation in London, I have noted the comprehensive review of their hospital proposed by the new management at Guy's. I am pleased to note that they have given a number of undertakings: that patient care will not suffer; that compulsory redundancies will be used only as a last resort; that services in the local community will be protected; and that quality of service is an overriding objective.
I am also pleased to be able to reassure the House that Lewisham and North Southwark health authority, in whose district Guy's hospital is situated, believes that the contracts which it has let to Guy's, and to other hospitals, provide satisfactorily for the health needs of its resident

population. Moreover, it recognises that prompt action is needed to tackle the financial situation at Guy's, and prefers that to unplanned action later in the year.
I am also pleased to record that, in Bradford, no reduction in services or activity is planned by the trust. It is the judgment of the public health authorities in the city that some increase in emphasis in primary and community services is right for local people. It is likely that, in terms of staff numbers, any reductions in hospital staff would be more than offset by further increases in community nursing and in the resources available to GPs.
The proposals by those two trusts illustrate a fundamental point. Neither district health authorities nor hospital managers are any longer prepared to accept that, simply because a hospital has always provided a certain service in a certain way, they should necessarily continue to do so. The needs of the patients they serve are constantly changing. Leading hospitals like Guy's and Bradford need to respond to those changes. Hospitals that can adapt successfully to change will flourish and expand. That is what I believe we are beginning to see happen in Bradford and south-east London; and, since any savings will go straight back into the health service, it will be the patient now, and in the future, who benefits.
Labour Members have nothing to say on health. Their leader yesterday finally let the cat out of the bag: under Labour there would be no more money for health. They have no proposals for dealing with the obvious managerial problems of the service. Their sole interest is in playing party politics with it. Their behaviour over the past few days is the final proof, if any was needed, that that is the truth.

Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State's assurance that health authorities are happy with the cuts would carry more weight if those health authorities represented anybody in the community for whom they now administer the health service.
Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how he reconciles his many statements over the weekend and his statement today to the House that there will be no cuts in patient care with the financial memorandum of Guy's, which was leaked today to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), and which states that managers recognise that in acute services there will be
inevitable reductions in direct patient care
and that in mental health services, which are local services, there will be "substantial reductions in service"? After those internal statements by the management of Guy's itself, should not the Secretary of State apologise for all those misleading statements?
If the business plans are to assist the Government in monitoring the progress of the trusts, why cannot those business plans be published so that we can all assist in the monitoring? What is in those business plans that needs to be hidden? How many more of those business plans contain cuts similar to those that we have heard about at Guy's this past weekend?
Will the Secretary of State publish the report on trusts from Coopers and Lybrand? Will he now tell the House what he has already told journalists—that last November Coopers and Lybrand found that only 12 of the 57 trusts had plans with which there were no financial difficulties? If that is true, was it not totally irresponsible of the right hon. Gentleman to go ahead with all 57 trusts? How did he keep


a straight face when he told the House on 4 December that, in deciding which hospitals should opt out, the key criterion was financial viability?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain how Guy's can be so much in debt and yet can afford to pay its chief executive the highest salary in the entire NHS? Is he aware that, in the past year, Guy's has advertised 44 new management posts at a total cost of £1·3 million—one quarter of its deficit? Will he explain how it can be value for money to hire more managers on bigger salaries to run a reduced service?
Finally, after this weekend, does not the Secretary of State realise that leaving hospitals to sink or swim in the marketplace is regarded by the public as a wholly unacceptable way of running their health service? Will he now accept that he cannot plough ahead with the second wave of opt-outs while hospitals in the first wave are foundering?
May I give you and the House notice, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition will return to this matter until we get an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will not take any more decisions on opt-out until the people of Britain have had their say in a general election about the health service they want?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that hospitals are not being left to sink or swim in the marketplace. Hospitals are being asked to respond to specific contracts from public health authorities to provide the services at the quality and the quantity that are needed. That is what we are seeing, and it will provide much better and more comprehensive health care.
The hon. Gentleman has once again shown that he has not troubled to understand the reforms that he criticises. It is not for a single hospital to provide comprehensive health care across the range that is needed by a district. Indeed, there are seven major hospitals and other minor hospitals within range of the district that we are talking about, and it is for those hospitals together to provide comprehensive health care, responding to the district's contracts. That is what the district is perfectly prepared to say that it has achieved.
We have discussed the Coopers and Lybrand reports before in the House. It is true that Coopers and Lybrand stated that a minority of the trusts had no financial problems at all. My judgment was that the new managements that we were seeking were far more likely to solve the underlying problems than the old systems that had created those very problems. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may think that that is odd, but it seems crazy that he should wish to return to the system that caused those problems in the first place.
The hon. Gentleman was forced by the House to back down two weeks ago in his threats to NHS managers, and his spending pledges were shot out of the water by his leader yesterday. He has no credibility whatsoever.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the cuts of £12·8 million in the Guy's and Lewisham budget in one year is the largest cut for any NHS unit since the national health service was set up? Did the right hon. Gentleman approve the plan last autumn knowing that there would be that cut,

or did he learn of the nature and size of the cut after he had approved the plan but before the cuts came into operation in April?
Is the Secretary of State aware that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the then Secretary of State for Health, told me in a debate in the House in the early hours of 13 March that one of the criteria for approving an opt-out plan was that services for the local community in Lewisham and Southwark would be preserved? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that almost nobody working at any level in Guy's hospital or using it as a patient believes that an overstretched, overworked work force can suffer a cut of 10 per cent. in its numbers and budget without the risk of the health care that is provided in the inner city being substantially affected for the worse?
Is not the reality that the Secretary of State has power, if he wishes to use it, under his legislation, to dissolve a health service trust? Should he not now dissolve that trust and allow that unit to be part of the national health service with everything else?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hospital is part of the national health service, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He has misunderstood what it is proposing, which surprises me, because I know that he has been in touch with the hospital. It is not proposing £12 million-worth of cuts. It has to put its underlying deficit in order, which amounts to about half that figure, and wishes to redirect another £6 million towards growing services, which is different from what the hon. Gentleman said. Among other things, it is saying that it will preserve and perhaps develop the local community aspects of its hospitals.
Indeed it is true that the hospital is overstretched, as are others in London. As anyone who knows anything about the NHS realises, there has been over-provision of total hospital numbers in London for 50 years as the population has moved away. Now we have to fund hospitals in London properly to offer the services needed in London, in addition to the specialties that are more widely needed. That is what Guy's is proposing to do, and that will secure its long-term future rather than going from crisis management to crisis management, which is what has happened for more than 20 years.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Secretary of State now do what his junior Minister refused to do last Wednesday: will he propose an emergency funding package to ensure that there are no redundancies or service cuts in hospitals in Bradford? The people of Bradford whose health needs are most acute do not want their hospitals to become supermarkets. We are not dealing with cans of food and packets of cornflakes; we are dealing with sick people, and we know that patient care will suffer if there are cuts.
The people of Bradford do not trust the trust, and most of all they do not trust the Government, because they know that the national health service is unsafe in Tory hands. They want the necessary money, staff and patient care, and, most of all, the damage that the Government have done to the NHS in the past 12 years to be repaired.

Mr. Waldegrave: They have been firmly told by the leader of the Labour party that they will not get a penny more from a Labour Government. The health service in Bradford and elsewhere in this country, and throughout the world, is developing in different ways. Primary care is


developing fast in Bradford, which has had some of the most dramatic improvements in the size of GP lists. I suspect that that is the way in which things will go in the future, with further development of primary and community services in Bradford.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to defend for ever the exact pattern of the hospital services that we have now, he will be in the position that his party has always been in—looking backwards, defending private interests—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—defending producer interests. I am perfectly prepared to stand by my accusation about private interests, too. The Labour party is more concerned with the interests of the Confederation of Health Service Employees arid the National Union of Public Employees than with patients. That remains as true now as it has been in the past.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a serious matter when the professor of surgery at Guy's warns publicly that manpower has got out of control and that management must get a grip on it? Would not management be failing in its duty to patients and to health care in the area if it ignored such remarks? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is regrettable that people should lose their jobs, especially in the health service, if the public can be satisfied that that will mean fewer ward closures, more patients being treated and more operations rather than have the Opposition's promises, that is the way forward?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The Labour party proposes to return us to the old management systems that created the problems with which the House is all too familiar. We are now doing the right thing, which is to put the management in the hospitals where it should be. When the management of one of our great hospitals takes action early in the year to balance its budget, that seems to me responsible behaviour which is in the interests of the patients and should be applauded.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite its size and importance, Lewisham hospital has always been considered the poor relation of Guy's? Indeed, he did riot even mention it today. Having been dragged into the Guy's and Lewisham trust, Lewisham hospital is now in grave danger of being dragged down by it.
How many staff posts are to be cut at Lewisham hospital? What will be the reduction in the service standards available at that hospital? What will be the impact on mental health services, which are so crucial to the inner-city constituency that I represent? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the surgical ward that was closed temporarily last year will now be reopened as planned? What will be the impact on the imminent transfer of children's services from Sydenham hospital to Lewisham? Is phase 2 of Lewisham hospital still secure? Is it really true that my constituents have nothing to worry about, as he suggests?

Mr. Waldegrave: As a result of this electioneering campaign, they are probably worried now. The hon. Lady is quite right to rebuke me for not using the full title of the Guy's and Lewisham trust, because it is essential that Lewisham hospital as well as Guy's should have the full attention of management. I can tell the hon. Lady's constituents that those two hospitals are safe, and that the

proposals will develop their long-term future. As I am sure she understands, it is the duty of the district health authority to ensure comprehensive health care for her constituents. It has told me that it has no doubt that, with these changes, it will be able to ensure that.

Mr. Roger Sims: Does my right hon. Friend think that the first priority of the NHS should be to provide jobs or to provide a high standard of health care? If the trustees of Guy's or any other hospital believe—as the Guy's trustees do—that, by cutting costs, hospitals can provide a higher standard of care for the people in the immediate community, and, through contracts, for those outside the area—and, in so doing, provide better pay and conditions for their own staff—should they not be commended rather than criticised?

Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The number of people employed in the health service has increased at about twice the rate of the number of patients treated. We cannot be proud of that; it does not show a very impressive gain in efficiency over the years.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said this morning on television that he could not guarantee that jobs would not have to be lost in different parts of the health service, and that the number of jobs might have to be reduced in some areas. He might like to tell the House where he believes the number of jobs should be reduced, but he was right in saying that. The total number of doctors and nurses increases, but the shape and pattern of health care must change over the years.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Did the Secretary of State know, when he approved the detailed proposals for the Bradford trust, that one of its first actions would be to sack newly qualified nurses, and that, within a month of taking over the operation of all the acute hospitals in Bradford, it would announce the sacking of 300 staff at a saving of £7 million? If the Secretary of State knew that, was it not incompetent of him to allow the plan to go ahead? If he did not know that, does it not show that he is treated with complete contempt by the people who made those proposals?
The people of Bradford rejected the trust; the doctors, nurses and health workers rejected it. Why did not the Secretary of State listen to those people instead of to the spivs he appointed to run it? People will be satisfied that something is being done only when this miserable, incompetent Minister resigns.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was, I believe, a Minister in the Labour Government at the time that the International Monetary Fund arrived here. Inadvertently, I am sure, he gave a wrong fact to the House. As he well knows, there is no question of 300 sackings in Bradford. The trust has made it perfectly clear that it thinks it likely that there will not need to be any compulsory redundancies. It has already fulfilled a considerable part of its target by not filling vacancies. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark that there will be 300 sackings.
Last year I had to judge whether the management offered by the new trust was better and more likely to produce good health care for the people of Bradford than the existing system. I have no hesitation in saying that that


is so, that the hospital's quality will improve, and that it will maintain its output of work, as it says it intends to do over the next year.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in hospital trusts, such as the two in Leeds, the management are rightly asking the practitioners how they can get costs down so that they can treat more patients? Whereas in the past there was the long-term problem of financial pressures which sometimes involved cuts, under the new trust system there is no logic whatsoever in reducing patient numbers, because that would simply reduce income.

Mr. Waldegrave: There is no difference in the importance that both trusts and directly managed units ought to lay on finding proper cost savings to plough back into health care. As the Prime Minister made clear over the weekend, every penny of savings from this or any other exercise in the NHS goes straight back into health care. The Opposition ought to welcome that. Our job is to see that the funds that we vote treat efficiently as many patients as possible and at as high a quality as possible.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State realise that his comment that the anxieties of people up and down the country are related to electioneering does him no credit and adds not one iota to his own job security? What does he have to say to the people of Leeds, three weeks after the introduction of the hospital trust at the general infirmary? Its chief executive has told unit trust managers to make cuts of £5 million in services——

Dr. Hampson: Five per cent.

Mr. Fatchett: Five per cent. of £100 million is £5 million. It would help if there were some numeracy among Government Members.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the people of Leeds that that will not add to the waiting list and that it will not reduce patient care?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Coopers and Lybrand report said that the Leeds general infirmary trust was not financially viable and that it would inevitably lead to cuts in services and jobs? Why does not the Secretary of State publish that report? Why did he let the trust go ahead in the knowledge that it would result in a cut in patient services?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the matter of electioneering, it seems to me a little more than a coincidence that this bogus campaign should be launched on the same day as the Opposition have arranged for a campaign paid for by NALGO on the self-same subject. Perhaps that is just a coincidence. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that problems—I am willing to acknowledge them—existed in that hospital before the trust was set up. My job was to decide whether the new trust management was more likely to solve those problems than the system that created them. That was my judgment. Since the hon. Gentleman knows that under Labour no more money will go to the NHS—his leader has told him so—what proposals can he make to improve the management?

Mr. Gary Waller: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that 50,000 extra doctors and nurses are working

in the NHS, compared with the position a decade ago, and that it would be ridiculous if the way in which staff are used did not change in response to clinical practice? Is it not regrettable that the situation in Bradford has been so distorted? Does not the creation of NHS trusts provide hospitals such as Bradford royal infirmary with the opportunity to use its resources in a way that puts patients first?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is right. In Bradford, as elsewhere, the shape of the NHS will undoubtedly change over the next 10 to 20 years. The pattern of hospital services will not remain exactly as it is now, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows. He is perfectly correct when he says that there are 60,000 more nurses; but there are also 16,000 more doctors and dentists than in 1979. I predict that the numbers will continue to rise. What is not certain and what would not necessarily be right would be if all those additional clinical people were in acute hospitals. They should be spread throughout the NHS to meet the needs of patients, not just the existing patterns of provision.

Mr. Terry Rooney: Will not the Secretary of State admit to yet another failed Tory experiment in Bradford? Will he explain why he has told the House today that there will be no cuts in patient care when the chief executive and the chairman of the trust have said publicly and in the press that there will be a 6 per cent. reduction in patient services? In the public consultation on the next trust to come before him, will the Secretary of State take account of the priority services rather than the lies which the management of the trust put forward last October?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is the duty of the district to provide comprehensive health care. It has made it perfectly clear that it has already placed contracts to meet local needs with that hospital, and other national health service hospitals. I hope that a considerable number of hospitals will seek trust status next year, because I am certain that that is the best way of managing hospitals.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise that trusts are, and always will be, part of the national health service and that the money involved is, and will continue to be, part of the national health service? Does he recall saying in answer to me that all the NHS trusts would not report to their regions but would report to the centre? That being so, can he reassure the House and all the trusts in general that, if any of them should get into transitional problems, there is some provision whereby he has reserve powers?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I have reserve powers, which I would use if a district told me that the comprehensive health care that it needed to supply was not available from the hospitals because of changes in supply patterns. My hon. Friend is perfectly right, in believing that we shall be monitoring the trusts very closely.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I have an obligation to protect the business of the House. This is a private notice question—[Interruption.] Please hear me out. This is a private notice question that I would normally allow to run for about 20 minutes or perhaps for a


maximum of half an hour, but, in view of the great interest in this matter, and taking into account the subsequent business, exceptionally, I shall allow questions to run until 4.15 pm and then we must move on. If hon. Members ask brief questions, I hope that I shall be able to call most, if not all, of them.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State recall how often he was warned in meetings, Adjournment debates and parliamentary questions that the trusts were set up in my borough and other parts of the west midlands in the face of overwhelming opposition? Can he say whether job losses will occur in the trusts that were set up in the borough? Is he aware that the miserable and dishonest way in which the Government are treating the health service will do as much damage to the Tory party and the Government as the poll tax has done? They are both products of prejudice and party dogma.

Mr. Waldegrave: We are told in the Evening Standard today that internal documents of the Labour party show that nobody believes its pledges on the national health service. That is entirely true and has been emphasised by what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. The Opposition will provide no more money. We have increased the money available to the NHS faster than they did, and are addressing the real management problems.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that none of us can determine whether any hospital is correctly manned without an analysis of the staffing needs of that hospital in relation to its detailed health objectives? I can well understand that my right hon. Friend does not normally wish such figures to be published, but as two particular cases have been the subject of great public controversy, will he make them available to the Select Committee on Health, if not to the House?

Mr. Waldegrave: The proposals of the Guy's and Lewisham trust are for discussion with its staff and are far from finalised. I have no doubt that it would respond to the Select Committee as my Department would.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: What guarantees can the Secretary of State offer that essential services and the quality of care will be maintained at Guy's and Lewisham hospitals? Will provision be protected for particularly vulnerable categories such as geriatric patients and mentally ill people?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can guarantee that the quality of Guy's work will be the same as it always has been. On behalf of the district and the hon. Lady's constituents, we must protect comprehensive health care, which will come from a variety of hospitals. It is the district health authority's duty to ensure that it has the necessary provision. That is the purpose of the health reforms, and that is right.

Mrs. Edwiina Currie: Has not the number of people working in the national health service increased fourfold in its lifetime, while the number of patients treated has only doubled? Does not that suggest that there is a substantial amount of waste and bureaucracy in the NHS, that there probably always has been, and that it has been getting worse recently, at least partly because of the Government's generosity in funding it?

Mr. Waldegrave: The figures at least show that those who believe that they can maintain and improve health care with fewer staff are likely to be telling the truth, and they are likely to know more than some of the amateur experts in the House.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Will the Secretary of State answer the specific point that has been made more than once? All weekend we have had to listen to the right hon. Gentleman assuring us that cutting 600 jobs at Guy's will not affect the service. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) quoted specifically from an internal management document, which said that acute and mental services at Guy's will suffer. Who is right—Guy's management, or the Secretary of State?

Mr. Waldegrave: Guy's services must be of the highest quality. District purchasers must have a comprehensive range of services from Guy's, "Tommy's" and other hospitals. As a result of the system that the hon. Lady seems to support—I am surprised by that—hospitals are overstretched, none of them is providing a service of the quality necessary, and staff are highly demoralised.

Mr. Robin Squire: On the specific point of job losses, will my right hon. Friend compare the position of Marks and Spencer, which provides necessities such as clothing and food, with that of hospitals? Does he agree that customer satisfaction in Marks and Spencer will not be shaken as a result of its unfortunate announcement today? Had there not been so much second-guessing by politicians on day-to-day hospital management, the announcement would not have received such a bad and unfair reception from Opposition Members.

Mr. Waldegrave: The national health service is in a more privileged position than Marks and Spencer: it has a guaranteed real terms increase in funding for this financial year, which is more than any shop, however grand, can guarantee. However, good managements must try to spend money where it is necessary—on patients—and if that can be achieved with fewer people so that more money is ploughed back into patient care, that is surely right.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Secretary of State understand that there is a crisis of confidence in the basis of trusts? How can he convince my constituents in one of the poorest parts of Manchester—their hospital has opted out and every health indicator shows that their health and health care are worse than elsewhere—that the provision of services will continue and that they will not face cuts and a diminution in services? Why should we believe him?

Mr. Waldegrave:: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows his constituency extremely well. The best way of meeting the health needs of his constituents may be an expansion not of acute care but of community medicine. We cannot say that the only important NHS provision is acute hospitals, but I can reassure him that the trust in Manchester will continue, like other trusts, to offer patients a first-rate service.

Mr. Richard Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the annoyance and anger felt in the past by most, if not all, Members of Parliament for Hertfordshire about the unfair distribution of finance within the North West Thames region between the shires and London? We have 41 per cent. of the population but


receive only 33 per cent. of the money. That has led to ward closures, and is caused by overmanning, shroud waving and expensive operations in London. At last, we are moving towards equal treatment and the same cost per operation. Anyone who complains has no idea about value for money and does not care about my constituents.

Mr. Waldegrave: The first report that analysed the unfair share of hospital services in London was produced in 1905. Partly because of political pressures, it was never tackled. Anyone who knows anything about the health service will welcome the fact that, at last, we are beginning to match hospital services to where people live now and not where people lived in 1905.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the first decision in the first week by the three NHS trusts formed in Newcastle was to increase the salaries of the top managers by substantial and secret amounts? Does he recognise that the fourth trust application, launched today in Newcastle, for the Royal Victoria infirmary involved not only an important community hospital but a major centre of medical and dental education in England and a major centre of children's health services in England? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that part of the business plan that refers to the future of medical and dental education and its financing and that part of the application that concerns children's health will be made known to the people of Newcastle?

Mr. Waldegrave: Those vital services will prosper better under the clearer and more accountable management of a trust than they ever did under the previous system. That will be true of all services in the hon. Gentleman's city, as it is of services in other cities.

Mr. Richard Tracey: In the face of the sustained political attack on health trusts by the Labour party, there is great confidence in the management and structure of the Kingston health trust. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the television interview yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, the public must appreciate that what the Labour party says about health is just words and more words and provides nothing tangible?

Mr. Waldegrave: Although I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point, the position is worse, in that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has given a range of spending pledges—from minimum wages to no-fault compensation—which would cost hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of pounds. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition shot all those pledges out of the air. Therefore, those spending pledges will have to be financed out of patient care, because there is no other way to finance them.

Mr. John Battle: Is the Secretary of State aware of the announcement about Leeds general infirmary that there will be £5 million cuts this year and £10 million

cuts in the medium term? Is he aware also that it was made plain in the bid document that, if the budget did not balance, there would be reductions in services, staff or wages? What advice did the auditors' report give the right hon. Gentleman, and which of those actions did he sanction? Will he publish that report? Will the trusts be publicly accountable for their budgets before we are any further into this financial year?

Mr. Waldegrave: There was no auditors' report. The hon. Gentleman knows that in his hospital, as in others, there have been lurches from crisis to crisis. Is it not better that hospitals should manage their affairs to match income with expenditure so that there are no crisis cuts? Once again, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the district is perfectly satisfied that it can purchase on behalf of its people the comprehensive health care that is needed in his city.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I warmly support my right hon. Friend's policy. Will he take time, in the cause of accuracy and truth, to remind the BBC that, when describing hospital trusts, it should be aware that they are not hospitals that have opted out of the national health service?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. It is worth reaffirming the position, particularly as leaflets still being circulated in the Labour party's name refer to hospitals opting out of the NHS. That is not true, and the Labour party knows it. I am sorry if the BBC slipped into using that language; it was an uncharacteristic mistake.

Mr. Keith Bradley: One hospital that should not be affected by any changes in patterns of health care referral is the famous Christie hospital trust, in my constituency, which is a centre of national and regional excellence. Will the Secretary of State allay public anxiety which was raised by the fact that before the trust was even formed the hospital could not afford drugs essential for cancer care? Will he confirm that the trust will not be one of those with financial problems, that there will be no job losses, and that in future all patients can be referred to the hospital and will receive all the health care prescribed by consultants so that the public who require such excellence of cancer health care may be assured about the future?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the future of Christie hospital is assured and he also knows—or he should know—that the story of the drugs to which he referred was a little more complicated than he thought when he launched into it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that questions to the Secretary of State may be tabled tomorrow for answer in a fortnight. Furthermore, I shall keep carefully in mind those hon. Members who have not been called today in order to give them precedence when we return to this issue.

Orders of the Day — School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members who want to raise points of order do not wish to complain because they were not called on the private notice question.
I have an obligation to protect the business of the House, and I shall have to put a 10-minute limit on speeches.

Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred at the outset to the importance of the subject when you said that you would allow questions to run until 4.15 pm. May I gently draw it to your attention that you did not call one hon. Member from one of the most impoverished regions in England—Merseyside? Do you think that that was fair?

Mr. Speaker: I was not aware that any hospital trusts were closing on Merseyside. If I am wrong, I am sorry, but I was not aware of it. I have called all those hon. Members who I thought had a direct interest, and I regret if I missed the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bear him in mind in the future.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any intimation from the Home Secretary that he intends to make a statement banning one of the world's most odious men—General Pinochet—from visiting this country to take part in an arms exhibition? You must be aware that thousands of people have sought refuge in this country from his regime of terror who lost relatives in the secret prisons and torture chambers under his fascist regime.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such intimation, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I am sure that it will have been heard by those responsible.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Further to the point of order made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans). Were you not aware, Mr. Speaker, that not only do my hon. Friend and I have in our constituencies the most underfunded hospital trusts, but that our mental hospital and its grounds were sold while the patients were still in it? It is not fair if you do not recognise that Merseyside—and especially St. Helens—has the biggest problems.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that many hospitals have problems, especially the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, he must find other ways to raise the issue.

Mr. George Foulkes: I fully understand that you did not call me, Mr. Speaker, because it was the English Health Secretary who was making a statement. In Scotland, we are a year behind. Proposals have just been introduced in Ayrshire, against the wishes of all the consultants, by an unelected

group of people. In Scotland we want to ensure that we learn from the English disasters as England did not learn from the Scottish poll tax disaster. If I apply for an Adjournment debate, will you consider my application sympathetically?

Mr. Speaker: I always look sympathetically at the hon. Gentleman's requests, but not at bogus points of order.
Many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, and I shall put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock. I hope that hon. Members who are called before 6 o'clock will take that into account to enable me possibly to relax that limit. I should like to call all hon. Members who are anxious to participate.
I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I look forward to producing before the House many proposals on the education service, but it is extremely unlikely that I shall introduce at any stage a more significant step than the proposal that we are discussing today. We are addressing the most vital thing of all in considering the quality of our education service. The quality of the education that we give young people in our schools depends above all on the quality of the teaching profession that provides it.
In the House, we can debate at great length the problems of the curriculum, of testing, and of buildings and equipment in schools. We can debate the qualifications they give and many other subjects. In the end, the real determinant of a good education system is that the teaching should be carried out by people who are good, dedicated and of the right intellectual quality, and who have the right commitment to the job. In an education service like our own state education service, the teaching staff need to be organised and respected as a profession. We all hope to see a teaching profession that cares for and enhances the professional values that it has sought to defend over the years.
I also realise that, to get the high-quality, well motivated and professional group of teachers, that we require, teachers need a fair level of remuneration to reward ability and good performance. They also need a worthwhile career structure to be developed for them, so that they can see a progression to the top of the profession in line with their achievements as their career goes on.
With the establishment of a review body to determine the pay and conditions of teachers, the Bill will pave the way for that aim, and it opens the period in which we shall see enhanced professionalism being encouraged among our teachers.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I may be anticipating my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks, but will the pay review body anticipate better rewards for heads and deputies who have such major responsibilities in schools? Above all, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind as the Bill goes through the House, and in subsequent efforts, the fact that the career teacher in the classroom is the person who should be better rewarded


commensurately than anyone else, and that he should be kept in the classroom and not constantly promoted out of it?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend touches on some extremely important points. I trust that, given its remit for pay, terms and conditions, the new review body will address itself not only to the overall level of remuneration of teachers but to the serious question of responsibility which my hon. Friend has raised. I hope that it will consider the question of proper differentials for headmasters and deputy heads, and for those who get to the top of the profession.
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend that, when one considers the profession at present, one realises that it is the really successful classroom teacher, whose performance in front of the class is good, who has the best claim of all in remuneration and reward. I agree that, in the teaching profession, as in others, it is quite important that we cater for those who know that their personal talents lie above all in teaching in front of a class and who know that that is the way in which they would prefer to pursue their career to the day of their retirement.
It cannot be right in teaching, any more than it is in nursing, in medicine or in a number of other professions, that to get to the top of the profession, one has to give up the vocation that has attracted one to the profession, and that one has to go into the realms of management. An excellent classroom teacher may not have the same abilities for that and may get considerably less satisfaction from it.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will move on a little.
The review body will have to address the matters to which I have referred to get the right answers on pay, terms and conditions. As I have made clear, it is equally important that it should produce an atmosphere in determining those matters which will enhance the professionalism of teaching.
In aid of that argument, I point to our experience with the other review bodies. They have produced a fair level of remuneration for the professions they cover, and they have also reinforced the professionalism of those professions. We have well established review bodies for doctors and dentists. Moreover, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, he established a new review body for nurses and midwives, which has transformed the atmosphere in which pay and conditions are determined—as compared with that which prevailed under the Whitley system—and enhanced professionalism. We may not yet have reached the levels of remuneration which all nurses would wish, but their pay and conditions have certainly been transformed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield may have noted a public comment last week by the current general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, Miss Christine Hancock, who is a formidable advocate of the interests of nurses within the health service—sometimes against the Government—who commended the notion of

a review body to her fellow professionals in the teaching profession, saying that, in her opinion, the system had transformed the position of nurses.
The Royal College of Nursing shares with the Professional Association of Teachers a commitment not to take industrial action and a desire for matters to be settled in a professional way, away from the world of industrial action. I believe that many teachers share the view of many nurses that that is the right direction in which to go.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State realise that the way things have turned out has caused a great deal of confusion not merely among Conservative and Labour Members but in his own mind? The Government promised to give negotiating rights back to teachers. The matter was taken up by the International Labour Organisation of the United Nations, and finally agreed. The first School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill went through Committee and everyone awaited its implementation. Why did the Secretary of State suddenly change his mind at that stage? Does it not show a degree of chaos among the Government that they can go so far and then change their mind just like that?

Mr. Clarke: There is great clarity of purpose among Conservative Members. As I shall seek to show in a moment, the confusion continues to lie with the Labour party. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) asks a fair question, although his recollection of recent events seems to be at fault. It almost sounded as though he had welcomed the original Bill, but I do not believe he did. Complaints were made to the ILO—if not with the hon. Gentleman's support, certainly with that of one of the unions with which he is closely associated—claiming that the Bill that the Government have now withdrawn——

Mr. Flannery: Oh.

Mr. Clarke: Clearly, with hindsight, the hon. Gentleman begins to find qualities in it. I hope that he will be persuaded, however, that the present Bill represents an improvement.
In July last year, we brought forward proposals for the new machinery contained in the Bill that completed its Committee stage. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, then Secretary of State for Education and Science, introduced those proposals after the Government had anxiously considered what we should do next, following the long period after 1987 when' we had failed to reach agreement with the teaching profession on how to move away from the interim advisory committee and sort out teachers' pay, terms and conditions. At that time, my right hon. Friend was quite attracted by the idea of a review body, as were quite a large number of members of the Government but the concept was heartily opposed by many teachers, and there was still more than a suggestion of industrial militancy in the air.
As we proceeded, it became clear that circumstances had changed significantly. I remind the hon. Member for Hillsborough and others that, while we were preparing for a return to a system of negotiations with a Government override, the six trade unions concerned were finding it impossible to agree on the allocation of seats on the employees' side of the committee. That was an extremely bad omen when it came to looking forward to the smooth progress of negotiations. Two of the trade unions were in


conflict with the other four about the status of the sub-committee that was to be established for head teachers and deputies Conservative Members on the Standing Committee were divided on that subject, and the trade unions certainly were.
In my opinion, it became ever clearer that large numbers of members of the teaching profession did not relish going back to collective bargaining—certainly if it were to be accompanied by industrial action of a kind which, in my opinion, a minority of the members of one large trade union still hanker after. This was underlined at the teachers' Easter conferences. A faction of the National Union of Teachers, who had got hold of the hall in whatever seaside town they were ensconced, passed all kinds of wild motions. These were disowned as much as possible by their own executive, as it knew that the teaching profession outside did not want this kind of return to industrial action.
The situation today is different from that which prevailed last July. Now, five of the six teaching trade unions support the notion of a review body. Some have been campaigning for it. Indeed, I believe that the opposition within the NUT is more muted than some of its militants would wish.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The information that the Secretary of State has just given the House is simply untrue. The fact is that he received from the teachers' organisations a letter telling him the number of seats that each union had agreed should represent teachers on the negotiating body. I received a copy of that letter. It is not true to say that teachers could not agree among themselves.

Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly search for that letter. My hon. Friend the Minister of State tells me that we certainly had not reached that stage by the end of the Committee's deliberations. Certainly, the contents of the letter were not communicated to me personally. My understanding is that teachers had not so agreed.
There were all the warning signs of the dangers of going back to the difficulties of Burnham. Members of this House have sat on Burnham committees—some representing the employers, and some the employees. Those who remember Burnham may recall that on only three occasions in 20 years did that machinery result in a negotiated agreement between employees and employers. I believe that the preparations for the new negotiating process had begun to show all the warning signs of its being unlikely to produce easy agreement on either structure or progress, and of its being inferior, as a means of going about the settlement of teachers' pay, to the review body process that I now advocate.

Mr. Jack Straw: I must press the Secretary of State on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). I see that the answer is coming straight from the officials' Box. I shall continue while the Secretary of State attempts to read the official's writing. Was the Secretary of State accurate when, a moment ago, he claimed that the trade unions had been unable to agree about composition? On this point, there is complete disagreement between the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend.

Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), like me, needs a little reminding of

the exact situation. The Professional Association of Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association were in disagreement with the other unions on the number of seats that each union should have on the negotiating committee. In addition, the Secondary Heads Association was in disagreement with the others on the number of votes that each union should have. All they had done was reach agreement in principle on counting relevant numbers of members as part of the negotiations. I do not think that there is agreement about the number of relevant members that each of them claims. Those who guard my correspondence continue to share my view that two unions still disagreed with the other four on the number of seats on the bargaining council, and one union disagreed with the others on the number of votes. I have already reminded the House of the history of Burnham. We were in serious danger of going back down that road.
I have described all the circumstances that have changed since the summer of last year. For some time now, the Government have been contemplating this change. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on taking office and previously, underlined his personal commitment to tackling the problem of the morale of teachers—raising the self-esteem of the profession—and addressing questions of professional status. The Prime Minister's commitment underlines the change between the proposals that were before the House and the review body to which we are now committed.

Mr. Straw: A report appeared in The Times Educational Supplement on Friday—as far as I am aware, no disclaimer has been issued by the Department—that, in the course of an interview, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had opposed a pay review body. Is that correct?

Mr. Clarke: I was not involved in the discussions with the Treasury last summer, so the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I have no idea. I know that, in discussions to which I was party, during the summer of 1990, the Government agreed to put forward the proposals that took the form of the Bill. As I have recounted, matters moved on. My right hon. Friend who is now the Prime Minister was firmly of the intent to raise the status of the profession and to consider again remuneration within it. That was the position at the end of last year. The Government have decided to introduce the Bill and to recommend a review body, for the reasons that I have set out.
As we are clearly set on that course, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has the opportunity to clarify the Labour party's reaction and its preference. I have been comparing the so-called reasoned amendment with the hon. Gentleman's first response on behalf of the Labour party when I made my announcement on 17 April. Most of those who are in the Chamber will remember his outrage and indignation when he leapt to his feet in response to my statement. He sought passionately to defend teachers' right to strike. He opposed root and branch the proposals that have now become the Bill, because he claimed that they went behind the principles of collective bargaining and the right to industrial action. He thought that important principles were being undermined, to the disadvantage of teachers.
The hon. Gentleman's reaction should not have surprised me as much as it did. The Labour party's attitude towards the public services has been dominated by its approach to industrial action. It is my recollection that, for as long as I have been a Member of this place, the Labour party has always supported every strike or every example of industrial action that has been taken by any group of public service workers against a Conservative Government. When the Labour party is in opposition, it supports each and every strike by teachers, hospital workers or whoever. When the party is in government, however, it gives in to them—sometimes with good grace and sometimes with bad, sometimes quickly and sometimes after a winter of discontent, but in the end, they always give in to them.
The Labour party's approach to these matters is best epitomised by the fact that the Chamber usually fills when there is a threat in the air of "good" industrial action by the public service. The Chamber was more crowded than I have seen it for many a long year for exchanges on the health service because the National Union of Public Employees was worried about redundancies at overmanned hospitals in both London and Bradford. No question of patient health ever brings Labour Members to the Chamber in such numbers.
As the Labour party is usually committed to the right to strike, it seems that the reasoned amendment moves away a little from that approach, although not too far. The reasoned amendment tries slightly to alter the tone; it does not refer to the right to strike. I hope that that means that the Opposition accept that industrial action against pupils is something to which groups of teachers should never have recourse. I trust that that will be underlined with clarity today.
The Government are proceeding with the appointment of a review body on the basis that it will bring an end to industrial action in our classrooms. If industrial action were to be taken, or to be threatened, on the pay or terms of conditions of teachers within the remit of the review body, there would be no commencement order under the Bill, and the interim advisory committee would have to continue in existence for some time, and for some considerable time more, until common sense prevailed.
The reasoned amendment goes to other matters. Perhaps I pay the amendment a bit of a compliment by describing it as reasoned. I am not sure whether its contents contain much rhyme or reason when they are related to the principal subject matter of the Bill. On 17 April, I asked the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and his colleague the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) whether the Labour party was in favour of or against establishing a pay review body for teachers. That may have been a difficult question on 17 April, but it should now be capable of an answer. There is no such answer in the reasoned amendment. That minor detail of the Bill is not referred to by the Opposition.
The reasoned amendment criticises the Government for
failing to meet its own deadline to restore pay settlement machinery by 1990".
Does the Labour party remain in favour of restoring collective bargaining? Is the Labour party lined up against five out of six of the teaching unions and also against the silent majority of the NUT in wanting to return to Burnham and not have a review body? Anything else that

the hon. Member for Blackburn may say on this subject will be beside the point if he attempts once again to discuss the matter without telling us whether Labour favours a review body.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I completely support the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and his comments about strikes. However, does he agree that pay review bodies are a better and more important defence for groups which typically do not have political clout and do not go on strike? In a recent written answer to me, it was revealed that university teachers have not received a real pay increase for more than 20 years. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is possible and certainly desirable to set up a similar pay review body for university staff as well?

Mr. Clarke: I will probably have an opportunity on another occasion to debate with my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) whether university lecturers have received a real pay rise in the past 20 years. Their real-terms pay is now considerably higher than it was when this Government came to office.
As a former university teacher, my hon. Friend asks his question at a singularly inapposite time. The Association of University Teachers is at the moment balloting its members on whether they should take industrial action in support of their pay claim, and no doubt the Labour party would egg them on. However, my hon. Friend is right: those who take such industrial action tend to be less successful than those who have a review body.
The Government have established review bodies for only a comparatively small and discrete number of professions affecting a large number of people because of the particular role of those professions in delivering a particular service. There are other non-striking professional groups in the health service and others in local government, central Government and elsewhere. The Government have identified doctors with dentists and nurses with midwives and also parts of the judiciary and the armed forces, and we have resolutely said that review bodies should not automatically extend beyond those groups.
The teaching profession is at the heart of providing a service intended to raise educational standards of people of statutory age. I am certain that many other groups will envy the review body status that we are giving schoolteachers. Many other groups would prefer to have their pay settled in that way. I regret to say that the reply to most of them will be that the Government cannot contemplate their claims. It is only because of the particular status of school teaching and the Government's particular desire to enhance the status of schoolteachers vis-a-vis the general population that we are prepared to establish a review body for that group and not to contemplate applications to extend the principle to any other group.
The AUT has strayed off side, at least with regard to this Government if not with regard to the Opposition, by balloting on strike action. Perhaps by contemplating strike action, the union believes that it will cause the Labour party to look favourably upon it.

Dr. Keith Hampson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has referred to the critical importance of schoolteachers in delivering


skills and the basic education required in a modern economy. However, I should have thought that those in higher education, particularly those in universities, play just as important a role in terms of a modern economy. As the central point for the support of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers for my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals was that the
very question of industrial action would recede into the mists of history
does my right hon. and learned Friend not realise that there is an unfortunate trend in higher education in that we are constantly talking about industrial action? Would not a review body for higher education ensure that industrial action would recede into the mists of history? My right hon. and learned Friend should ask the Opposition whether they favour review bodies for higher education. One suspects that they do.

Mr. Clarke: The Labour party's view on such matters usually depends on what the trade unions recommend. The Opposition become a little baffled when five trade unions out of six are prepared to accept a no industrial action agreement, but that normally does not arise and, so far as I am aware, it does not arise with regard to the AUT.
For some years now, the Government have resisted applications for review bodies from many different groups. Many people would advocate giving up collective bargaining and industrial action if they could have review body status. By its very nature, review body status must be selective. It would not be possible to finance and manage public services if the vast majority of public servants had their status determined by review bodies. I believe that two thirds of the civil service would happily settle tomorrow for review body status governing their pay.
The professions that have been granted review body status including doctors and dentists by a previous Government, nurses and midwives by this Government and the armed forces——

Mr. Straw: What about Members of Parliament?

Mr. Clarke: We had a Members' review body, but it was never followed and we have now abandoned it. Hon. Members are not held in such high regard by the public or even by themselves, it would seem, judging by voting patterns on Members' salaries. Only a small and select group of professions have their pay determined by review bodies and it is my duty to resist any applications to extend it.
What is the Labour party's view about a review body? That is the only unanswered question today. The public are in favour of the Government's recommendation, as are the vast majority of teachers. There is no serious question mark left over the proposal except why on earth the Opposition cannot bring themselves to support it without hesitation or conditions.

Mr. Steinberg: The Secretary of State has made much play of no industrial action. Is the pay review body to be imposed or granted on the condition that there will be no industrial action? Will that be written into the legislation? I can see no reference to that in the Bill, and if it is not written into the Bill, how is he going to enforce it?

Mr. Clarke: The intention to set up a review body is on condition that there is no industrial action with regard to matters within the remit of the review body. The condition

is not in the Bill and I am not going to be bogged down in the internal procedures of trade unions by asking them to send me letters to confirm such conditions. The best way to judge matters is by their actions.
When the Bill has received its Second Reading, passed through its parliamentary stages and received Royal Assent, we will hear no more about industrial action from any section of the teaching profession. We will have rendered it extinct. We are proceeding on condition of no industrial action, and obviously, circumstances would change so far as the Government are concerned if industrial action was taken or threatened again.
We are following a perfectly good precedent. I worked with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he established the review body for nurses and midwives. We had exactly the same discussions. We would never have convinced the Confederation of Health Service Employees or the National Union of Public Employees to sign a no-strike agreement. They would have been drummed out of the brownies by the Labour movement if they had signed one, and they would have been expelled from the Trades Union Congress and disowned at Labour party conferences.
My right hon. Friend, supported by myself and the Government, set up a review body and declared it to be on the basis that there was to be no industrial action. We have not heard a word from any section of the nursing profession about industrial action from that day to this. The Royal College of Nursing has actually grown in strength, because the basis on which that profession proceeds is that industrial action is out of the question for nurses who deal with patients.
That, in my opinion, is the atmosphere inside the teaching profession as well. Five unions, as it happens, will tell us—and will even sign it—that they will not take industrial action again. The sixth, in practice, I guarantee will follow that pattern exactly. However, if industrial action were ever taken or threatened, the review body basis for setting their pay would be off. How could we face the AUT? Its members might even be prepared to give up industrial action if they were offered review body status, which is much coveted by public sector employees.
Clause 1 sets up the review body. One controversial point in it for the hon. Member for Blackburn is that it gives the Secretary of State power to give directions to the review body. That is described in his reasoned amendment as unacceptable. He will probably start drawing comparisons between this and the financial remit which used to be given to the interim advisory committee before it produced its four reports.
It is not a power to set a financial remit of that kind. It actually sets out in statutory form the power of the Secretary of State to tell the review body to have regard to affordability and the need to recruit and retain people of adequate motivation. It exists in the Bill because that direction or request is given by the Government to the other review bodies. They are non-statutory review bodies, so the power to give that kind of guidance must be put in statute on the face of the Bill. It is on all fours with the other review bodies, and does not justify the Opposition's complaint in their reasoned amendment.
Clause 1 also underlines the fact that appointment to the review body should be made by the Prime Minister, and that the review body will report to the Prime Minister. That is an important difference between the review body and the interim advisory committee. Great stress was


always placed upon that to me by representatives of the medical profession. Doctors and dentists insisted that, if they were to have that arrangement, it was to be an independent body set up by the head of the Government—the Prime Minister—that it should report to the Prime Minister, and that the Prime Minister should preside over the decision taken in the light of the review body's recommendations.
Clause 2 covers the making of orders in the light of the review body's recommendations, and provides for some consultation with local authorities and with other employers and trade unions before making those orders. That gives me the opportunity of repeating what I have said before, as is always said in respect of other review bodies—that the Government will be committed to implementing the recommendations of the review body unless there are clear and compelling reasons to the contrary.
Clause 3 has only one feature of interest to the House, which is that it allows grant-maintained schools not to be bound by the orders that follow the review body recommendation if they so wish. I very much doubt whether many grant-maintained schools will choose to settle their own pay and conditions in a hurry. My advice to them would be to go cautiously. They are small units, and they work within the same financial envelope as other schools. I do not expect that many grant-maintained schools will set themselves up as totally autonomous negotiating bodies, working out wholly separate levels of pay for their staff.
However, they would be well advised, as time goes on, after consultation with their own teachers, to consider the prospects of making variations, opting for additional payments for particular local patterns of work, perhaps additional payments for longer school hours of the kind that city technology colleges work, perhaps some payments for extra-curricular activities that are beyond those that we normally expect a teacher to engage in, and so on. I advise grant-maintained schools with some care to contemplate using as a management tool, in the best sense of those words, the provision in clause 3 which would enable them to opt out, and therefore to vary the terms and conditions of their staff.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: On opting out, in view of the caution that the Secretary of State has expressed and the obvious impact that it may have elsewhere, why has he given himself no discretion to consider whether such a proposal is satisfactory? When a proposal is made to him, under the terms of the Bill he is compelled to accept it, even if he feels that there are strong reasons why it should be referred back.

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that that is necessary. We have taken on board the point that was strongly urged on my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Standing Committee. This Bill, unlike the former one, gives grant-maintained schools the ability to opt out of national arrangements if they wish, but it stipulates that they should do so only after consultation with their own staff—their own teachers. That is some caution against a school suddenly doing something that is in nobody's interests in the locality concerned.
The Bill finally makes provision that it will come into force by order. I have already made it clear that that commencement order would not be made if threats of industrial action are made by those who would otherwise be covered by the arrangements.
I commend the Bill to the House. Of course, it leaves in the minds of most schoolteachers in particular, I should imagine, one large unanswered question: exactly what levels of pay and remuneration for the teaching profession will emerge as a result of this new machinery, which we hope to have in place in time to determine the settlement for April of next year? Of course we have no means of knowing. It is the essence of this machinery that we are setting up an independent body that will give advice to the Government in the light of all the evidence that it gets.
Undoubtedly, my duty on behalf of the Government will be to preside over the giving of evidence to the review body, which will stress the advances that have been made by teachers in recent years, stress the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, talk about the need to concentrate principally on the need to recruit and retain people of the right ability, and so on. Employers and trade unions may submit evidence that has a strikingly different emphasis on what should determine pay for next year and beyond. At the end of that process, the review body will determine matters objectively.
I can only point to the history of what has happened to review body groups compared with other public sector workers in recent years. Some quite good tables have been produced. I use ones by the Treasury, but the BBC commissioned some that came to the same conclusion recently, showing what has happened to various groups and public sector workers over the 10 years of this Government's existence compared with the economy as a whole.
Two groups of public servants stand out above any others in terms of increases in their earnings. They are, first, nurses and midwives and, secondly, doctors and dentists. When one says that, people tend to say, "You have forgotten the police force. Surely the police force has had a big percentage increase in its earnings." It is fourth in the table. Doctors and nurses are well ahead.
The missing third are schoolteachers, who have not done as badly over the past 10 years as many of them or as some of the public sometimes believe. The rest of the public service comes nowhere—going down the table below. I believe that that reflects the respect that university teachers—[Interruption.] I am glad to say that university teachers do not appear on my copious list of examples.
In addition to having done better than other groups, the review bodies have one other marked success to chalk up when one considers how those professions have been compared since they have had review bodies, compared with the past and other groups. The review body system has tended to ensure a steady progression in the pay of the professions. The history of the pay of nurses, doctors, teachers and many others shows a pattern of progression which shows that, after something of a hiccup of a dramatic increase—a Halsbury, a Clegg, or something of that kind—a decline takes place while tensions build, and then there is another big hiccup when another big increase comes along.
One of the advantages of a review body is that it tends to produce a smoother line because, year in and year out, the same review body takes an independent look at the right level of settlement. I happily submit the Government


to that. We need an independent body for schoolteachers which will tell us what the levels of pay need to be in the light of affordability and the need to recruit arid retain good people.
We shall implement the recommendations unless there are clear and compelling reasons why we should not. By doing that, I believe that we shall forge a new relationship between the Government and our teachers. We shall be giving teachers the professional status that they deserve. They will be in the ranks of genuine professionals and treated like other professionals as far as remuneration and terms and conditions are concerned. They will be rewarded for the professional dedication they show towards their pupils.
A society that treats the occupation of teaching children with that kind of respect is a society that shows that it is treating the educational standards of its children with the same proper respect. That is the attitude towards educational standards and the teaching profession which the Prime Minister proposes that his Government should take and which the Government are determined to take in the interests of achieving the education service that we all want. I commend the Bill to the House.

5 Pm

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which gives unacceptable powers to the Secretary of State to issue directions to the Pay Review Body, undermining its independence of judgement; which contains no proposals to raise teachers' professionalism by the establishment of a General Teachers' Council; which makes clear that Her Majesty's Government has broken faith with the profession by failing to meet its own deadline to restore pay settlement machinery by 1990 and has broken faith with honourable and Right honourable Members by giving explanations as to the reasons for the delay in securing a Report stage of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill which were disingenous; and because the policies of Her Majesty's Government have led to a serious decline in the morale, motivation, recruitment and retention of teachers, and in their relative pay.
I begin with a quotation:
There is a crisis of confidence amongst teachers of such growing magnitude that it now threatens the entire spectrum of the Government's educational reforms.
So marked is the decline of status, and self-esteem of the teaching profession, that unless the Conservative Government address the root causes of this problem:
The educational system as a whole will face a prolonged period of steady deterioration. The Government will, ultimately, and sooner rather than later, be forced to compromise on the implementation of its recent reforms … From all sides the Conservative Government is being assailed and challenged on its education reforms and for failing the Nation's children, parents and teachers.
That quotation comes from the Carlton Club paper, which is marked "strictly private and confidential"—I am not surprised about that—and which is headed "Education in the 1990s—A Current Assessment—Requirements for the Manifesto". It is based upon what is described as an "investigative seminar" which was called by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. (Sir N. Fowler) and attended by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and by the Secretary of State's special adviser. The paper contains admission after admission by leading Conservative education policy makers about the parlous state of our education service. It provides a much more accurate backdrop for today's debate than the claims that were made earlier in the debate by the Secretary of State.
There is certainly a deep crisis of confidence among teachers. The first question to ask is why there is such a crisis. It is widely agreed that in no other period—certainly not in this century—has the morale and self-esteem of the teaching profession, and its standing in the eyes of the public, been lower. Part of the explanation for that crisis of confidence is simple and relates to pay. As last April's report of the Select Committee on Education and Science showed, there has been no real-terms increase in teachers' pay since 1987. More importantly, teachers' pay relative to that of other non-manual workers has been declining consistently since 1974, with the hiccups to which the Secretary of State referred, and is still falling further and further behind. As the Secretary of State acknowledged, those differences are particularly marked for those whose career ambition is to teach rather than to administer. I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State now regards as his overwhelming priority the proper rewarding of those who make a career out of teaching, not out of administration.
The Secretary of State commented on my remarks about the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions following his statement on 17 April, and said that I had commended its work. I have commended the work of the IAC which, among other things, has made some pertinent remarks about teachers' morale. However, one of the truths about the IAC is that, because of the constraints on its terms of reference, and despite its best judgments, it has not been able to secure a single percentage increase in teachers' real pay.
Although the decline in teachers' relative pay is important in explaining the decline in morale, it has served to reinforce—and has been reinforced by—two other things. The first is the long-standing anti-intellectual, anti-education culture that has been so marked in England, but not in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, for a century or more. I have always found Bernard Shaw's jibe, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach" depressing not only because he said it, but because it has had such resonance across society and down the generations.
No blame directly attaches to the Government for that anti-intellectual and anti-education culture in our society, but blame does attach to them for the fact that, over the past 12 years, they have made the climate in which teachers have to work so much more difficult. They have constantly demeaned and diminished the value of teachers and the value placed on them by society. There are plenty of illustrations of that, such as the national curriculum.
There was no consultation in 1987 with the people who would have to put the national curriculum into practice. A so-called "consultative document" was issued three months after the general election. Comments were invited over a short period, but no notice was taken of what was said by the teachers' organisations or anybody else—not about whether the national curriculum was desirable, but simply about whether it would work. The consequence has been that it does not work and that, almost from the day when it was formally established, it has had to be unpicked. That lack of consultation led to what Prince Charles referred to last week as "innovation fatigue" as a result of half-baked measures being introduced and then retreated from.
There has been a similar saga on testing. Again, there has not been any proper consultation—not about whether there should be testing, but about how it should be operated effectively. The ludicrously complicated standard


assessment tasks were piloted last year. Because proper note was not taken of the feelings of the profession on whether that weight of SATs would serve any purpose, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State now describe what was supposed to be the introduction of national testing as "national pilots". Have the Secretary of State and his colleagues ever stopped to think about how those constant changes—that "innovation fatigue"—have affected teachers' morale and their view of how they are regarded by Ministers?
Ministers have repeatedly insinuated that teachers cannot be trusted. I shall discuss the changes that have been made in the history and geography national curriculum orders later, but the Secretary of State must bear in mind that by suddenly and impetuously forcing on the profession changes for which no ground had been laid, he has challenged the professionalism and integrity of the history and geography teachers in our secondary schools. That is not only my view; it is the view of those teachers who feel bitter about the way in which they have been treated.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hesitated to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's somewhat wild historical theories earlier, but I have been listening with amazement to his account of how the national curriculum and testing have been introduced without any consultation. He knows that the whole process is heavily laden with consultation. For the curriculum orders, for example, a working party is first set up to produce an interim report. That is published and excites a lot of comment. In the light of those comments, the working party then produces a final report, which is then passed to the National Curriculum Council, which consults on it before recommending draft orders to me. I produce the draft orders and we then consult upon them. In the light of that consultation, we make final orders, and those are what we are debating tonight.
Does the hon. Gentleman describe that as a process of non-consultation, which holds the teaching profession in contempt? There was an enormous amount of consultation, at the end of which the hon. Gentleman winds up arguing that, as Secretary of State, I should not make any changes. If he adopted his own procedures, he would find himself rubber-stamping an endless process of consultation built into the arrangements.

Mr. Straw: If the Secretary of State had listened carefully to what I was saying, he would know that I was referring to the way in which the national curriculum was constructed in the first place. He was not a Minister in the Department of Education and Science at the time, and neither were any of his colleagues. A consultative document was issued a month after the general election in July 1987, with a deadline of a few weeks for comments. Despite the fact that all the professional organisations submitted comments and said, for example, that key stage 4 would not work as the previous Secretary of State had planned, their comments were ignored.
All the efforts that we and the organisations made to try to get some sense into Ministers and to make them realise that the curriculum was being overloaded for 14-year-olds, were simply ignored. The integrity of the teaching profession was challenged not only by the history and geography orders that we shall debate later but by the way

in which they were introduced. The Secretary of State gave the profession no notice of those changes, thereby suggesting that he lacked confidence in the profession.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is the reason that the hon. Gentleman has totally failed to address himself to the Bill that he has been totally deserted by his erstwhile troops? Is he aware of the letter from Nigel de Gruchy of the National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers, in which he expresses strong support for today's proposals:
But hopefully with a fairer system than ever pertained in the past for determining teachers' pay and conditions, the profession will be left free to get on with the all-important job of teaching in the classroom and raising standards to the level everyone appears to want"—
with the sole exception of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Straw: I am well aware of that letter, and I shall deal with the attitude of teachers in a moment. I was speaking directly to the reasoned amendment that Mr. Speaker has been pleased to call, and I was saying why the Conservative party is so windy about the professionalism and morale of teachers, and why it has had to devote paragraph after paragraph in its draft manifesto scraping around for measures that might dig it out of the hole into which it has got its reputation on education.
One reason was the challenge to teachers' professionalism and the second is that teachers have a strong sense that Ministers regard the education service as one for other people's children and not for their own. This has everything to do with teachers' professionalism and their morale, because the Government have been leading the profession, or seeking to lead the education system for the past 12 years and, as the Carlton Club accepts, they have failed to do so.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) wrote a good pamphlet which was published by the Tory Reform Group in December, called "The Blocked Society". He said of Ministers and hon. Members, among others, in relation to the state education service:
They are neither in it nor of it. They patronise it in words … but not by attendance.
That is the truth.

Mr. George Walden: rose——

Mr. Straw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not realise quite what a truth he was telling when he said of the Secretary of State that he patronised the state education service in words but not by attendance. I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises how damaging it is to his authority that, in six months as Secretary of State, he has spent less than one day visiting state schools. He may groan but, given his lack of a background in the state education service, as he is now the leader of state schools does he not think that it would have been a good idea to visit a few schools before pontificating about them?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I attended one for my education, unlike the hon. Gentleman, who attended a minor public school. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 14 minutes. Is he in favour of a review body for teachers? He does not seem to wish to move towards that question.

Mr. Straw: I am coming to that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait his turn. I am making my speech in my own way.

Mr. Walden: I am grateful for the additional publicity that the hon. Gentleman has given to my pamphlet, but, no doubt inadvertently, he has quoted me completely out of context. When I said:
They patronise it in words … but not by attendance",
I was not referring to Ministers, although in another part of the pamphlet I pointed out that Ministers make the choice of sending their children to private schools, as I do. The reason that I do so is so that my children will not be subjected to the egalitarian philosophy of teaching which has flooded the profession and for which the Opposition are responsible. I entirely understand the choice of any of my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet who behave in the same way. I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman was trying to drive a wedge between myself and the Front Bench. Therefore, I should like to say that I support my right hon. and learned Friend's measure today 100 per cent. It is courageous, energetic and imaginative, and exactly the sort of thing that I would expect from an imaginative and energetic Secretary of State.

Mr. Straw: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman feels the need to retrieve his position. He opened the paragraph by saying:
This Conservative Government does its best for the children of others",
Then he goes on to say:
They are neither in it, nor of it".
In another paragraph, which will be in lots of Labour party pamphlets, it says:
It used to be a cheap parliamentary jibe for Labour to ask why it was that so few Tory Ministers used the state schools. There was a time when there were answers, but there are no answers now, because the question has been subtly adjusted: when the Government claim that the state sector has changed out of all recognition as a result of their policies, why do Government ministers still steer clear of it? The only answer now is the truth, and the truth is scarcely sayable by any Government Minister.
That may be so, but the truth will certainly be "sayable" by us.

Mr. Clarke: The state system ought to attract many of those people who send their children to independent schools. What would make the state system more attractive, and what we ought to be agreeing on, would be if the enhanced professional status of teachers reduced the risk of strike action in state classrooms. That is why the hon. Gentleman should soon move on to say whether he is in favour of a review body, or whether he thinks it is more important that strike action should be kept open as a possibility in classrooms.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is right about that, and I shall return to it in more detail. However, I can tell him something else that would make state education more attractive—if he did not come out with the sort of ludicrous statements that are quoted in Woman—[Laughter.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman may think that it is a joke, but he is quoted as saying:
I have never met anybody who did not wish to send their children into independent education if they could afford it.

Mr. Clarke: rose——

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment when I have finished the quote.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is quoting the Daily Mirror, a newspaper that only a buffoon would quote. The Daily Mirror, which is read by morons, produced that

sentence. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the article in Woman, he will see the sentence that he quoted, followed by my saying that that is a sad state of affairs and that it is necessary to improve the state education system to stop that being the case.

Mr. Straw: He is very windy. As far as I understood it, the Secretary of State is admitting that he said it. He may have said something else as well, but he said:
I have never met anybody who did not wish to send their children into independent education if they could afford it.
I do not know whether he approved it, but I know that he said it, and it happens not to be my experience. As even The Northern Echo pointed out today, the Secretary of State must live in a closed world if he thinks that everyone who sends their children into state education does so only because they cannot get them into private schools. That is an utter calumny, and it is insulting to all the good aspects of the state education service.
Of the attacks on the professionalism of teachers that I have described, perhaps the greatest of all was the unilateral withdrawal of teachers' negotiating rights in 1987. That deeply damaged teachers' self-esteem, as did the way in which Ministers have prevaricated over new negotiating machinery. On Second Reading of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill in December 1986, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—referring to the power to grant extensions under the Bill—sought to make much of the fact that
the advisory committee should be established on an interim basis only—until 1990"—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 43.]
Not three years, but at least five years will have elapsed before any pay negotiating machinery can be restored to replace that of the interim advisory committee. That represents a breach of faith with the profession, and one for which teachers have not lightly forgiven the Government or the Secretary of State.
Restoring the morale of the teaching profession requires much more than new and agreed negotiating machinery, or even the sort of pre-election pay increase that no doubt the Secretary of State will have in mind if the election is delayed. It requires a Government with a real commitment to state education—a Government who honour and value teachers. That plainly does not apply to this Government. However, a proposal supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House would give a clear signal of the renewed importance attached to the teaching profession: the proposal for the establishment of a general teaching council. Such a council would hold a register of the profession, help to determine entry to and exit from the profession and give advice on a wide range of matters relating to supply and training.
The cost of establishing the council would be relatively low. It could be done easily if the will were there. It was backed by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, chaired by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State has not supported that proposal. To coin a phrase, he patronises the profession in words but not in deeds.
The Secretary of State keeps asking me whether the Labour party supports review bodies. I was intrigued that, just after he had asked me to give a "yes or no" answer to that question, he was posed a similar question by his hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins), and for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson).

Mr. Ken Eastham: Friends?

Mr. Straw: Technically, at least, they are hon. Friends.
The Secretary of State was unable to give a "yes or no" answer, because the answer depends on the circumstances. Neither, as I recall, was he able to give a clear "yes or no" answer when he was being pressed to establish a review body for the ambulance personnel during their dispute 18 months ago.
The Labour party has long supported the establishment of independent review bodies when that is agreed between the parties. I referred to that—I am surprised that the Secretary of State has not quoted me—during the debate on teachers' pay and conditions on 6 June 1990, when we were dealing with the pay and conditions order for last year. We are sceptical about the proposals in the Bill. They do not seem to be consistent with a fully independent review body. That view is gaining increasing currency among those who the Secretary of State claims support the Bill. For example, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has said of the Government's proposals:
we must seriously, and perhaps fundamentally, question their adequacy".

Dr. Hampson: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because I scrutinised with care what he said on 17 April. He very carefully did not accept the principle of a review body for schoolteachers. Does he now accept the principle of a review body for schoolteachers and a review body for university teachers, whatever the specifics?

Mr. Straw: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman read what I said on 17 April. If so, he ought to read it again. I have just explained that we are in favour of not only the principle but the practice of review bodies when they are agreed between the parties. We are sceptical about whether the proposals in the Bill will meet our requirement that the review body be independent.

Mr. Hampson: rose——

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will hold on, I will explain that for him.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have some sympathy with the criticisms in the reasoned amendment. However, he is not being clear. If the reasoned amendment were passed and the Bill withdrawn, would he ask the Government to come back to the House—or would he do so himself—with a differently worded measure introducing a review body; or would he regard the opposition of one of the teachers' trade unions as a block, no matter how the review body was set up?

Mr. Straw: No. I would not regard that as a block for a moment. I would have sought proper consultation with the parties about the proposal. One of the truths about the proposal, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) knows, is that consultation on review bodies was ruled out in the Green Paper published by the Government in 1987. The idea of a review body simply was not on the table from that day until the Secretary of State made his announcement on 17 April 1991.
As I said, AMMA, which supports the principle of a review body, has serious doubts about the practice of the proposed review body. I want to come to the part of the argument about the direction-making power in clause 1. As the Secretary of State made clear on 17 April, the usual procedure is for the Government first to establish its terms

of reference, then to give evidence to the review body, including evidence on the economic circumstances that the Government think should be taken into account. The Government have a reserve position; they will accept the recommendations of the review body unless there are clear and compelling grounds for not doing so.
We accept that practice and would not depart from it. However, a question arises—why does the Secretary of State feel it necessary to include in the Bill powers of direction that do not exist for other review bodies, even in this non-statutory form? The wording of clause 1(4) is almost identical to the wording of section 2(4) of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987, which gave the Secretary of State substantial powers of direction to the interim advisory committee. Those powers were used, and were the principal reason why the interim advisory committee was unable to follow its own conclusions and recommend increases which it judged necessary to maintain recruitment, retention and morale.

Mr. Win Griffiths: It said so.

Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend said, it said so. In case the Secretary of State has missed it, section 2(4) of the 1987 Act says:
The Secretary of State may give directions to the Committee with respect to matters referred to them as to considerations to which they are to have regard and financial or other constraints to which their recommendations are to be subject".
Clause 1(4) of the Bill says:
With respect to matters referred to the review body by him, the Secretary of State may give directions to the review body as to considerations to which they are to have regard".
The only words that are different are the words "and financial or other constraints". The Secretary of State knows that those words are wide enough for him to give directions in practice as to the financial and other constraints that are to be imposed on the review body.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose——

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the Secretary of State in a minute, because this is an important point. Clause 1(1) allows the Prime Minister to establish the review body and the Secretary of State to refer to it
such matters relating to the statutory conditions of the employment of school teachers
as he may from time to time decide. Therefore, he determines the terms of reference. I cannot for the life of me understand why that directional power is necessary unless it is to be used to constrain the review body, in the same way as the interim advisory committee has been constrained, on matters of affordability.

Mr. Clarke: In his analysis of what is really a Committee point, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that the 1987 Act contains a reference to the financial constraints to which the independent advisory committee was to be subject when making its recommendations. This is merely a general power to give directions to review bodies as to considerations to which they are to have regard. I have already said that they are to be asked to have regard to affordability—as evidenced, among other things, by the standard spending assessments for education—and also to the need to recruit and retain people of adequate motivation. That is not the same as having a financial limit given to them. The 1987 Act made the interim advisory committee subject to a financial remit.

Mr. Straw: With great respect, this cannot be dismissed as a Committee point. Central to the operation of the Bill is whether the review body will be able to exercise independence of judgment. It will not be exactly the same as other review bodies. Their terms of reference are established. The Government give evidence about issues such as affordability and the standard spending assessment and then reserve their position. In this case, there will be a statutory power to give directions. The Bill does not say that the review body "can" have regard to the directions; it "must" have regard to them.
The Secretary of State knows full well that, when words such as that are used in a measure, the review body will have to pay regard to those considerations; it will not be given the opportunity to weigh the evidence. Instead, it is being told that its starting point on any issue regarding which the Government have given directions must be that. When the teachers's unions understand the point in more detail, they will say that this is unacceptable and is likely to undermine faith in the review body's independence.
If the Secretary of State wants this arrangement to be successful, between now and the Committee stage he ought to look carefully into whether it is necessary. My guess is that it was inserted by the Treasury as a belt and braces provision. It is not needed if this body is to operate as an ordinary review body. The fact from which we do not resile is that, on the basis of clear and compelling grounds, the Government can change or phase in a review body recommendation and can give evidence. That ought to provide sufficient protection. The similarity of the wording in this Bill and the 1987 Act regarding the direction-making power must lead to the review body's practice being closely related to that of the interim advisory committee.

Mr. Clarke: To repeat what I said before, the Government will not be giving the review body a financial remit of the type that the interim advisory committee had. We shall reject recommendations only for clear and compelling reasons. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the review body should be established on that basis? The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asked the hon. Gentleman the same question, and, interestingly, he asked him whether he would he in favour of that, if one of the unions disagreed. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) seems to be wandering off to every other point that he can think of without answering perfectly clear questions. Does he agree with my statement of policy? Would he be put off, as the hon. Member for Truro asked him, if one union disagreed?

Mr. Straw: I have already answered emphatically the question about one union. As for the Secretary of State's question, an explanation has still to be offered to me as to why direction-making powers should be included in the Bill. If they are unnecessary, they should not be there. They would be a temptation to Ministers, a temptation that they would use.

Mr. Walden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not intend to give way to him. I have been speaking for 33 minutes and have already allowed a great many interventions. I want to get to the end of my speech.
The Secretary of State referred to industrial action. He said that the Labour party has already supported every

strike by public sector workers. He must know that that is a calumny. If we are to have a serious debate about how to raise the professionalism and self-esteem of teachers, he must know that that is untrue. There have been many occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name one."]—I shall name one: the NUT conference at Easter took the decision to threaten strike action.—[HON. MEMBERS: "You supported that."] That is literally untrue.
I defer to nobody in my view that, so far as humanly possible, industrial action should be avoided inside schools. Even The Sun managed to see the distinction. That is a completely different point from the suggestion that the right to strike should be removed. On 17 April, the Secretary of State tried to bluster his way through. He suggested that this policy would go ahead only if the unions agreed to remove the right to strike. That turned out to be a fig leaf, but a transparent one. The Bill says nothing at all about that. There have just been a few words from the Secretary of State. He has insinuated that, somehow, all this depends upon the removal of the right to strike. It does not.
All hon. Members want education to be free from industrial action, but the Government must recognise that they bear a heavy responsibility for any disruption that has taken place in the past. Moreover, they bear a heavy responsibility in the future.

Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No. I want to come to the end of my remarks.

Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely we need to know, in view of what the hon. Gentleman says, whether he intends to vote for or against the Bill, or to abstain.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The way that hon. Members vote in the House has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair.

Mr. Straw: Our reasoned amendment speaks of the Secretary of State breaking faith with the teaching profession and also breaking faith with the House. Our view is that the way that he conducted himself in relation to the first School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill was a breach of faith and that the Secretary of State's conduct was unacceptable.
When he spoke on 17 April, the Secretary of State said that, if we looked back to the Second Reading debate, we should realise that the Government were careful to keep their options open. We find nothing of the kind. If we look back to the debate on 27 November 1990 we find that the Secretary of State said:
The Bill contains the agreed policy of this Government. I can certainly speak for two of the candidates for the position of Prime Minister who are committed to the Bill".
At the end of his speech he said:
I therefore commend the Bill to the House."—[Official Report, 27 November 1990; Vo. 181, c. 743–56.]
There were no "ifs" or "buts" in his Second Reading speech, and there were no "ifs" or "buts" in Committee.
The Secretary of State pretends that there has been a change of climate since November. That is a bogus explanation. What has happened since November is that there has been a change of Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister says that he wants to do something about education, but he has also said that he is not quite sure what, according to The Times. Since November, he has


been scrubbing about trying to find out what it is that he should do. He has come up with this inadequate proposal. The Secretary of State has a duty to be honest with the House.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who speaks on education matters for the Opposition——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is not giving way. This is totally irresponsible and undisciplined behaviour.

Mr. Straw: When I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him what had happened to the Bill, he said to me:
As you know, there is considerable pressure of business in the House. We are of course looking at the timetable for this Bill alongside competing priorities for Parliamentary time.
That explanation was simply untrue. The Secretary of State owes an apology to the House for offering hon. Members statements that are completely inconsistent with the facts.
As the draft Conservative education manifesto says, there is a crisis of confidence among teachers. The bill, in the hands of the Government, is the cause of that crisis and not its solution. I commend our amendment to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before proceeding further, I have an announcement for the House. In his wisdom, Mr. Speaker has now lifted the 10-minute limit on speeches, leaving it to the common sense and self-discipline of Members to see that all those wishing to be called are able to speak before the House divides at 10 o'clock.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be brief and shall keep within the 10-minute limit that was previously in force.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, I introduced the review body for nurses, and there are one or two lessons to be learned from that. I listened with mounting disbelief to the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). As I understand it, his policy on the review body is that, if the NUT agrees, he will agree, and if the NUT does not agree, he will not agree. It is demeaning for a major political party simply to wait to be told what position to take. The hon. Gentleman's speech was disappointing and thin, and was attended pretty thinly by an Opposition on a three-line Whip. In my view, the hon. Gentleman is leading his own party down the wrong road and it would be a tragedy if he succeeded in doing the same with the teaching profession.
There is no question but that, over the past 20 or 30 years, Governments of all parties have faced substantial difficulties in finding the right mechanism for determining the pay of large public service professions. Any Government would need to balance a number of demands. There is a need to be fair to the particular profession when the Government are ultimately the employer or provide the finance for the salaries; there is also a need to be fair to the taxpayer and the public, because large settlements are expensive for the public and can pre-empt money to other public services.
Education is no more an island than the health service, and one has to take all those considerations into account. It is crucial to be fair to the public who are intended to benefit from any public service—in this case, education, but it also applies to the health service. It is clear that the public do not benefit from a public service suffering from industrial action and strikes. Nothing can be worse for health or education than strike action, which scars those services.
Getting the balance right is a problem for the Government. It was a problem for the last Labour Government and for previous Conservative and Labour Governments. Only a party bigot would argue otherwise. The issue is not simple, but the problem occurs in a large profession when the Government are the employer or finance it. It is much simpler in practical terms in an individual school or hospital and can be settled on that level, but all experience shows that problems arise in large professional groups.
No system of pay determination is perfect, but in education, the pay review body is the best hope and has worked out most fairly for all. All experience shows that the last thing that leaders of professions covered by pay review bodies want to do is give up those pay review bodies. The last thing that the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, the director-general of the British Medical Association or whoever represents the top civil servants would want to do is give up their pay review bodies. They value them and consider them most important. That is why I find the Opposition's position on pay review bodies so extraordinary and incomprehensible. They have a three-line Whip against the award of a pay review body, which is probably the best thing that has happened to the teaching profession for many years.
The usual criticism of pay review bodies does not normally come from the left. The classic opposition comes from the right, and is along the lines that review bodies get in the way of the market and we should not interfere with the running of the market. I was presented with that criticism when I introduced the pay review body for nurses. It is not what I imagine Labour clubs throughout the country to discuss every Friday and Saturday. Opposition to pay review bodies can also come from Treasury Ministers—under Labour or Conservative Governments—who will probably say for the next 30 years, as they have said for the past 30 years, that a review body limits the Government's freedom. To be frank, anyone who has had to deal with a review body knows that it limits the Government's freedom. That is the price that the Government have to pay.
I know that things have changed since I left the Government just over 12 months ago. I have no knowledge of the negotiations that took place to provide a review body on teachers' pay, but the idea that, in all the discussions and debates on the matter, Treasury Ministers were saying that the country and the profession needed a review body is quite comical. I cannot imagine that Treasury Ministers were going up and down Whitehall with placards in favour of a review body for the teaching profession. Unless Chief Secretaries have changed in the past 12 months, that is an entirely fanciful idea.
Anyone who has sat round the Cabinet table considering the outcome of review body reports knows perfectly well that they limit the freedom of the Government. It is certainly possible to stage reports, and in the past we have done precisely that, but one would


think three or four times before rejecting such a report. The power to do so exists, but it is rarely used—for the good reason that, having set up a review body, the last thing the Government would want is for that review body to resign, pack up and disappear.
If the only thing that worries and concerns the Opposition is the independence of the pay review body, I stress that a 11 experience is that once a pay review body is established, its independence is taken for granted. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I were negotiating with the Treasury on public spending, he regularly used the expression, "If the Chief Secretary offered me that deal, I would bite his hand off." That sums up my view on what the teachers should do presented with the proposition that my right hon. and learned Friend is offering them this afternoon. If the teachers want to make comparisons, they should look at the nursing profession and compare the experience of the nursing profession before and after the review body was set up.
The hon. Member for Blackburn made an extraordinarily weak speech, but he knows more than most about what happened to the nursing profession before and after the review body was set up. The hon. Gentleman was the special adviser to Lady Castle who hammered the nurses into the ground in the mid-1970s. If the hon. Gentleman wants the figures, I can provide them.
In 1974–75, nurses and midwives were given a 20 per cent. increase. That sounds all very well, but the retail prices index was 26·3 per cent. and the index of average earnings was 27·6 per cent. Next year, the figure was 8 per cent., the RPI was 12 per cent. and the index of average earnings was almost 14 per cent. In 1976–77, the award was 5 per cent., the RPI was 17·6 per cent. and the index of average earnings was 8·5 per cent. Under the review body, in 1983–84 the increase for nurses was 7·5 per cent., the RPI was 4 per cent. and the index of average earnings was 5 per cent. In 1984–85, the increase was 8·6 per cent., the RPI was 6·9 per cent. and the figure for average earnings was 5·3 per cent. In 1988–89, the increase was 17·9 per cent., the RPI was 4·8 per cent. and average earnings were 8·5 per cent.
Nurses have done spectacularly well under their review body. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State rightly said, for that reason professional leaders who have experience of the system value it very much. If one said to the BMA, "We are going to take away the review body," the health service would grind to a halt.
My advice to teachers is that, by rejecting a pay review body, they would be missing an historic opportunity. It is the one step that could do the most to meet their professional aspirations. If they do not want a review body, they can simply reject it by taking strike action. The Government: are limiting their freedom in pay determination; the quid pro quo is that there should be no strike action. Every review body operates under that condition, and I very much hope that that will always be so.
The vast majority of the teaching profession want not to take industrial action but to have a sensible and fair method of determining their pay, which is the purpose of the pay review body. It is the best deal for teachers.
Children are crucial to this debate. They cannot benefit from a system that can lead to industrial action, which is so against their best interests.
Only one group can oppose the proposal on logical grounds—union activists whose raison d'etre is being able

to threaten industrial action to get their way. There is no doubt that there is a role for trade unions in the review body system. They must give evidence to the review body, which will be questioned. Their skill and the quality of their evidence will determine much.
There is no role for the threatener—the NUT delegate we see on our television screen each Easter. Most of the public and the profession will not shed tears if such a character disappears into the background, where he belongs.
By opposing the Bill with a three-line Whip, the Labour party has made one of the worst mistakes of this Paliament. It has shown that its true interests are not the public, children or teachers, and that it remains the prisoner of the big public service unions. In a sense, that is why the Government were elected in 1979. The most revealing aspect of the debate—the hon. Member for Blackburn did not mention this—is that the Labour party remains in a—I was going to say "equivocal" but it is worse that that—subservient position to the big public service unions.
Education, the classroom and the pay of professional teachers should not be an industrial battlefield. The Bill gives us the best hope of moving from that prospect to a much fairer and better way of determining teachers' pay. For that reason, I support the Bill, but above all I hope that the teaching profession will respond to it. I believe that the Government are right and that the Labour party has been disastrously wrong in its tactics this afternoon.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) lectured us about making the worst mistake in this Parliament, but he knows much about bad mistakes in this Parliament. He was one of the people behind the poll tax. Was that not a mistake? Is it not a continuing mistake? Son of poll tax is in the background. We shall see whether that is a mistake. We do not need lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about bad mistakes in this Parliament. We have seen such mistakes in the past 12 years, never mind in one Parliament, so let us not have that nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman prefers that nonsense, he is welcome to it.
A glaring omission from the debate has been the fact that, in the past few years, teachers have had neither a review body nor any pre-negotiation. Their negotiating rights were taken away. I oppose the Bill, and I hope that Labour Members will oppose it. I have faith that they will, but when negotiations—[Interruption.] The Minister constantly mutters, but I never know what he is saying. Would he like me to give way?

Mr. Eggar: It is clear to the hon. Gentleman, as it was to Conservative Members, that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has not made his position clear. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask the hon. Member for Blackburn whether the Labour party favours the review body.

Mr. Flannery: I do not need to do so; my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) stated bluntly that he opposes the Bill, and it needs opposing. It is one of the most serious things that the teaching profession has faced since the last war.
Conservative Members send their children to private schools. Education is in the hands of people who hate the state sector. It is no good them smiling, because that is the reality. The Bill strikes a blow at the reason——

Mr. John Marshall: rose——

Mr. Flannery: We want to allow every hon. Member who is present to speak, and I want to contribute my little bit. I shall not go on too long—I promise.
The Bill strikes a blow at the fundamental principles of trade unionism. Trade unions were created for two fundamental reasons—for the free negotiation of pay, and for the free negotiation of conditions of service. They came into being after Tolpuddle, and they exist today for the same reason.
Unions that support the pay review body have expressed profound reservations. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn quoted from a document issued by the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. It says:
Second Reading: Monday 29th April 1991",
which I believe is today. [Interruption.] I am trying to show Conservative Members that this is an up-to-date document. It continues:
The Association regrets the haste with which the Government has brought forward this pivotal debate.
That statement was made by AMMA, not by me or the National Union of Teachers. The association continued:
it is less than two weeks since the first announcement by the Secretary of State for Education and Science"—
the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in his seat—
that it has become the Government's intention to give teachers a Review Body. There has been no opportunity for consultation to have yet taken place and we are therefore necessarily limited in our understanding of the Government's full proposals. We very much hope that Ministers will explain their plans more clearly in the course of the Second Reading debate.
Why have the Government suddenly changed their mind? I have been a member of almost every Standing Committee on education matters since I became a Member, but I was ill during the discussion of the first School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill. For six or seven weeks, the Government were determined to give negotiating rights back to teachers. That decision was not made out of thin air. They were repeatedly told by the International Labour Organisation, a United Nations body, that they were breaking international law by taking away teachers' negotiating rights. If hon. Members want to see the record of that statement, they can get hold of it. Most Labour Members have seen it.
AMMA stated:
Members will recall that, in November 1990, the Association urged rejection of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill at Second Reading. Our view was then based on two grounds, that

'(1) new procedures and powers in the Bill for the local determination of teachers' pay and conditions of employment are, at the least, ill-judged and premature; and
(2) the reserve powers accruing to the Secretary of State are so excessive as to jeopardise the success of negotiating machinery established under the Bill.'"
The association welcomed the fact that teachers' negotiating machinery would be restored and is surprised as anyone that the Government have decided not to do so. Referring to the latest Bill, the association stated:

The Bill as drafted would empower the Secretary of State to 'give directions to the review body as to considerations to which they are to have regard."'
The association—not the NUT or the Labour Front Bench—referred to other review bodies. It did not mean the review body that is offered to the teaching profession now. The association stated:
Other review bodies, which have achieved success over a long period, operate instead within concise standing terms of reference `to advise the Prime Minister on the remuneration' of a named group of employees.
The other review bodies did not exist to act as negotiators and to tell teachers that they must accept what is offered whether they like it or not.
It is true that offers to other professions have been reasonable, but there is not much faith in the idea that an offer from the Government to teachers will be reasonable. Teachers, like NUT leaders and the Labour party, do not want anything to upset teaching in the classroom. They made it clear that they were putting the matter to a poll. I am confident—I know a thing or two about it—that teachers would refuse to take strike action. The NUT leadership, including me, have been struggling for a different system.
AMMA stated:
The additional considerations to which the Government wishes a review body to have regard, year by year, are submitted only in the form of evidence from the relevant Department. We see no justification for the proposed departure from this precedent of evidence, which is essentially reasoned in its nature, being the medium of communication to a genuinely independent body.
The association does not want any action to be taken, although it would have liked negotiating rights to be established. It proposes substituting a review body for negotiating rights. I believe that the association is making a mistake, but only time will tell. The NUT, of which I am a member, wants teachers' negotiating rights to be restored and is opposed to the review body.
The International Labour Organisation made it clear that the Government should restore negotiating rights. Even the Government repeatedly stated that the withdrawal of those rights was only temporary and that they would be given back. The Government are violating international law by taking away those rights. Teachers have no negotiating rights and no review body.
Article 4 of ILO convention 98 contains crucial words, which I underline in my mind:
machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers' organisations and workers' organisations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.
That is what the ILO wants, whether the Government like it or not.
Teachers are eagerly making concessions to the Government in the belief that the Government will make some concessions to them. The teachers are mistaken. They are taking the Government on trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn referred to clause 2. The explanatory and financial memorandum states that clause 2
enables the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to make an order without having received a report from the review body; provides that the remuneration of school teachers is to be determined and paid by local education authorities and the governors of grant-maintained schools in accordance with the provisions of such orders".
The Secretary of State can make a wide-ranging order without having heard a word from the review body. Is that


the way in which the review body will be used at the beginning? I hope not. There are more disquieting measures in the Bill.
None of us wants anything to upset classrooms. Many Labour Members were teachers, as were some Conservative Members. I believe that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) was a science teacher and that he did not want his classrooms disrupted. The Government have made a mess of the entire education system. Some years ago, a gentleman in the Tory party spoke about democracy. He said that it was untidy, ponderous and slow but was the best thing we had. Those were the words of Winston Churchill at about the beginning of the war.
Conservatives Members are characterised by gross impatience. Instead of negotiating with teachers on pay and conditions, they took away negotiating rights and precipitated all the trouble that we are experiencing. If they had not done that, there would have been no need for two Bills to restore negotiating rights. Our children would have been taught, possibly without regular testing for seven-year-olds. I said that I was backing the Bill in one sense only. The purpose of the first Bill was to return negotiating rights to teachers. Labour Members struggled to achieve certain conditions within those negotiating rights. I do not believe that any real conditions were offered, but at least negotiating rights were expected to follow then.
The argument that the review body is a negotiating organisation is nonsense. It can impose what it wishes, and teachers believe, from their experience, that that is what it will do. Those unions and parties that believe that the review body is a negotiating organisation and that have abandoned the fundamental right to free negotiation are relinquishing a right for which our ancestors fought hard over a couple of hundred years. I would not want it to be given up easily. All other European nations have freedom of negotiation.

Mr. Hawkins: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "returning to negotiating rights?" I do not believe that he means returning to Burnham. If my memory serves me rightly, the Burnham negotiating machinery agreed on a settlement only about three times in a couple of decades. It was a major forum for disagreement. I should have thought that a review body was a better way of solving problems.

Mr. Flannery: I should not dream of lecturing the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) on what I mean by negotiating rights. He knows that I mean free negotiations between employers and teachers. I said nothing about going back to Burnham—only he has that leaning, which is nonsense. I do not want to go back to Burnham; it is dead and gone and we have since come a long way. The hon. Gentleman accuses us of wanting to go back to Burnham as he accuses us of wanting strike action. Both ideas are nonsense, and he knows that.

Mr. Hawkins: Then what?

Mr. Flannery: We shall have a review body, whether we want one or not. The Government took away negotiating rights without giving us any say in the matter. They promised to restore them, but did not do so.
The Government will impose a review body, and I only hope that it is honourable, not like the words that I read

from the Bill. The Education Reform Act 1988—which should have been called the Education Deform Act—gave about 400 new powers to the Secretary of State. We were appalled, and we can see the chaos that resulted in schools.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: If the hon. Member does not want a pay review body or a return to Burnham, what does he want?

Mr. Flannery: I made it clear to the hon. Member for High Peak. I told him that I wanted negotating rights. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) cannot have been listening. I read out what the International Labour Organisation said. Shall I read it again? Hon. Members should stop telling me to do what I have already done. Conservative Members are hard pressed.
On Second Reading——

Mrs. Hicks: rose——

Sir Norman Fowler: rose——

Mr. Flannery: There is a queue. The hon. Lady was a member of the Select Committee, so I shall give way to her.

Mrs. Hicks: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said perfectly clearly, but, perhaps like my colleagues, I do not understand his interpretation of negotiating rights. What will it mean in practice in terms of achieving a solution to the problem of teachers who naturally want an annual increase in salary?

Mr. Flannery: Does the hon. Lady really want me to tell her? There is a table: employers sit on one side and union representatives sit on the other. They talk to each other and put forward arguments. Sometimes it changes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Burnham."] Whenever anybody negotiates, Conservative Members say that it is like Burnham. That is their opinion. They are old-fashioned. They do not seem to be in the present age. I know that the Government are in a mess—a 12-year-old dilemma. They do not know where they are, but I thought that they would understand some simple matters, such as negotiating rights.

Mr. Steinberg: rose——

Mr. Flannery: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, as he was also a member of the Select Committee.

Mr. Steinberg: I am enjoying my hon. Friend's contribution. We desperately missed him from the Committee on the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill.

Mr. Flannery: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Steinberg: I will accept a drink tonight.
In answer to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), may I say that Ministers—one of whom is sitting on the Front Bench—argued vehemently in Committee for negotiating rights between trade union representatives and employers. That is exactly what we want. The Minister who is sitting with his hands in his pockets—I think they are in his pockets—argued vehemently for those rights no more than two or three months ago.

Mr. Flannery: That was not so much an inquiry as an attempt to help me along. I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said.
We are dealing with a serious issue. I want not a review body but a right to free negotiation such as that held by every teacher body in all democratic nations. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for High Peak keeps interrupting me from a sedentary position. If he is not clear about what negotiating rights mean, we should have a talk. God help anyone who negotiates with the Tory party for an increase in pay and conditions, because he will not get it.
The Government are offering a bribe. It would stick in their craw to give us the right to honourable negotiation, so they are thinking of something else, and that something else is a review body. They have promised all sorts of things, but I want to ask a serious question. They make promises about what they will do for teachers, but can we believe that the party that imposed the poll tax will keep its promises to help teachers?
The Conservative party has played havoc with almost every section of working people by splitting them—such as the ambulance men and nurses—and by attacking them—as it is still doing—and by imposing the poll tax, and now the son of poll tax, and by attacking our health service. Let me make it clear once again that the Conservatives voted against the health service. I do not want to pursue that idea, but the Conservatives said that we should not have a health service. [Interruption.] Yes, they voted against it, but that is a big theme.
The teaching unions and anyone who follows the same lines as those taken by the five unions will discover that they are barking up the wrong tree and that this ruthless Government, who are in the last phases of office, are, in desperation, getting up to all types of tricks. They are offering bribes—the review body is a bribe to teachers. I am sad that five unions have accepted it, although my own union—the National Union of Teachers—has not. I hope that the Labour party will not accept it.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I have been looking forward to making this speech for a long time. As one who has consistently supported the concept of a pay review body for teachers, I am delighted to support the Bill. It marks a watershed for the teaching profession and for the future of education, because, if we are to learn anything from history, we must learn from its mistakes.
We have heard much about negotiating rights. I first became involved in national education in 1974 and, as many hon. Members know, the Houghton award to teachers was made in the same year. It was a recognition that, in spite of negotiating rights, which existed in a form that we know—or knew—as Burnham, teachers' pay had been allowed to fall behind. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, it had fallen under successive Governments. The Houghton award was a massive hike, but it was significant that it referred to what came to be known in the jargon of negotiations between teacher employers and teaching unions as the "Houghton teacher".
The Houghton teacher was a teacher whom the report regarded as someone who would receive a professional salary while exercising a professional commitment which,

I am bound to say, has been shown by the vast majority of teachers, regardless of some of the nonsense—such as strike action—that we have seen during the past decade.
My involvement went further than merely becoming a member of a national education body. I had the dubious privilege—privilege because to deal with anything to do with education is a privilege and dubious because any contact with Burnham must be regarded in that way—of becoming a member of the Burnham committee. I was the deputy leader of the employers' side of the management panel.
To talk about meaningful negotiations during the period of the Burnham committee is nonsense and a contradiction in terms. While one union was negotiating across the table, the leader of another union was outside, giving his press conference and explaining how much better he could do. It was a shambles, which had a further complication. I know that because I trod the path from Church house to the office of the Secretary of State in Elizabeth house to see whether the employers could get an extra 0·5 per cent. to try to conclude the negotiations. Burnham had few friends then, and it has even fewer friends today.
During that period, an opportunity was offered to the unions in 1974. It was lost not because it was thrown away by the vast majority of teachers, who responded well, but because of the internecine disputes between trade unions that would not accept the opportunity.
We must recognise that the Bill is an acceptance that we have come a long way. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I did not favour the original School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, because I felt that it was a move backwards to a sort of son of Burnham. I could see nothing in that Bill which would move us significantly forward. I have been a long-time supporter of a pay review body. Things have been changing for a long time. We have seen a far more progressive and foward-looking attitude from many of the teacher unions which is far more in touch, and far more in keeping, with the aspirations of their members.
The changes have brought us to where we are today. Five of the teacher unions support the Bill. They may have qualifications and reservations, but one of the great strengths of the Bill is that it is buttressed by an absence of a statutory requirement not to strike. That is an acceptance of the changes that have taken place. I have been greatly encouraged during the past month by many of the statements from the second largest teacher union which have been supportive of the concept. The unions were looking forwards, not backwards, and recognising that the problems that bedevilled Burnham and its negotiations had to be abandoned for ever, and that a new mechanism and a new opportunity had to be seized. The Bill is that new opportunity.
To turn our backs on the Bill now would deny teachers what all members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts acknowledged. We may have had different reasons and we could support some of the proposals wholeheartedly, and some less so. We recognised the problem that teachers faced and we recognised the considerable problem of lack of morale which teachers expressed to us. Over and over again, their view came across to us. It was not just a matter of pay, although that was fundamentally important; it was a matter of status and of esteem.
Teachers were conscious that they had slipped in public esteem. They were conscious that whether parents were sympathetic to some of their broad aims begged the question. They were conscious that parents were fed up to the back teeth with their children's education being disrupted. The unions have recognised that. They realise that to go again down the road of disruption would be the final nail in the coffin of esteem for teachers and of teachers' morale. The Bill is the way forward and the opportunity.
From figures that have been put before the House today, we have learnt that groups of people who are covered by a pay review body will, in general terms, do far better than those who are not. That clearly signals the Government's intention to raise the morale of teachers, to give them the professional standing they deserve and to say to parents that the Government's commitment to a strong, well-paid and esteemed teaching profession lies at the centre of their education policies.
Governments can legislate until they are blue in the face on the national curriculum, but the success of the reforms depends solely on the teacher delivering them in the classroom. If we can get the teachers behind us--I believe that the Bill will do so in a way that has not been possible before—we shall do an enormous service to education.
I find it incomprehensible that Opposition Front Bench Members have taken their view today. I have had many conversations about education with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I am broadly in agreement with many points that he has made, as I am with many of the points made by Opposition members of the Select Committee. I had respect for many of their views. I listened today with a sense of disbelief, because all that we have heard shows that the Labour party is firmly wedded to the past rather than looking forward very much to the future.
I have said that I believe that the Bill is a watershed—I do not believe that I can overstate that point. However, if not only the Labour party, but any of the teacher unions—one is standing out at the moment—reject this opportunity, they are doing a grave disservice to teachers and to education, and an even greater disservice to children.
The delivery of education to our children must be central to any education policy. That is at the heart of our debate. I urge Opposition Members and the members of the National Union of Teachers who stand against the Bill to recognise it as an opportunity. The failure to do so will mean that they stand condemned as wedded to the past and entrenched in a culture that signally failed to deliver what teachers wanted and what education needed, and which deprived many of our children in the past year. I will now finish my speech; I am astonished by my moderation.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ensure that there is no doubt, and to save interventions in the early part of my speech—I have no intention of speaking for as long as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) did—I must tell the House that I and my party unequivocally support the move towards a review body, although we have reservations about the way in which the move was made and about the details of the proposal. We take that view for many of the reasons given by Conservative Members who support the implementation of a review body.
Above all, we take that view because the last thing that is needed now—just as it was the last thing that was needed five months ago when we discussed similar provisions here—is further delay and confusion. The main problem for teachers today is not the level of pay, although there are problems, but morale in the profession and the way in which teachers feel that they have been treated.
One big step towards correcting that problem is to sort out the way in which teachers' pay and conditions are determined. The status that should come with a review body, provided that it is made to work, which will require support not only from teachers, but from the Government, will be, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) said, a turning point for teachers. I certainly hope it is.
The Government would have commanded more support for their position had they shown a little more humility in their presentation. There is no question but that the Government's position has changed dramatically since they presented the original Bill five months ago. It is difficult for them to justify dressing the present Bill up as merely a reaction to changed circumstances. The truth is that many of those in the ministerial team favoured a review body in the first place but were prevented from advocating such a move. With a change of Minister and a change of Prime Minister, they found it rather easier to persuade their colleagues of the merits of their case. A little humility would not have gone amiss. Ministers should have said that the Government did not have it right in the first place but have now taken a large step forward.
At least the Government's position has the benefit of some clarity, which is more than can be said for that of the Labour party. I think that the Labour party is split. I say that because, although it is clear what some Labour Back Benchers think, we cannot be altogether certain what the Front-Bench spokesmen think. I think that the Front-Bench spokesmen are broadly in favour of the principle of a review body, but not on the terms that the Government now propose. That is our position, too, although we state it more clearly than Labour Members have so far managed to do.
In the debate on the original Bill—five months ago almost to the day—the Secretary of State told us that all the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative party were united in their support for the Bill and that there was no doubt about the party's position on it. Presumably the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to alleviate any doubt about whether the Bill would make normal progress regardless of the musical chairs at the top. I queried whether that was the case, and suggested that, in view of the arguments that candidates in the leadership contest were advancing, it might be wise to pause for reflection—to have a breathing space—before reaching a decision. I suggested that, in view of what the candidates were saying, a review body might be more appropriate than the arrangements that Ministers were then pressing upon us.
That was not to be. The Secretary of State said:
it is time now to put more permanent arrangements into place."—[Official Report, 27 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 743.]
At the second sitting of the Standing Committee, the Minister of State said:
We want to proceed as rapidly as possible. That is why we want to make good progress in the Committee."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 December 1990; c. 40.]
I expressed my doubts and warned him that he might live to regret it. We then suffered many weeks of discussions on the Bill.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman enjoyed it.

Mr. Taylor: I enjoyed it, but I am not sure that all of us enjoyed all of the Committee's proceedings. Now that the Government have withdrawn the Bill, I suspect that many of us feel that we might have found better things to do than engaging in wasted work. Moreover, I wonder what our proceedings on the Bill cost.
Despite my criticism of the Labour party's response to the proposal and of Opposition Members' cloudy approach today, and despite my support for the broad principle of a review body, I must express considerable support for the reasoned amendment, principally because of the appalling way in which Ministers have treated the House. There can be no excuse whatever for Ministers, who knew that they were engaged in a process that could lead to the tearing up of the original Bill and the presentation of another Bill, not to have informed politicians and the general public of what was going on so that they could contribute to the process and so that time and money were not wasted.
We should compare the secrecy that prevailed until the final announcement was made with the professions of consultations that preceded the original Bill. We were told that the reason why, for five years, teachers had gone without satisfactory pay machinery, was that consultation needed to be undertaken and plans laid, and that everyone needed to be involved in making the decision. The Government finally came up with the original Bill and, even as we were debating it, they were writing without any consultation a completely different Bill—the Bill that we are debating today.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the principle of the Bill, there is no doubt whatever in my mind that the way in which the matter was handled was entirely wrong. Worst of all, once the Bill left Committee, we had a long delay, with no explanation, and Ministers were engaged in clear deceit, claiming that the only reason for the delay was the lack of parliamentary time. At one stage, when I asked the Secretary of State what was going on, he ducked into the toilet in the Lobby. Having discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Blackburn, I understand that he had exactly the same experience.
Perhaps the Secretary of State has a weak bladder, in which case I am sure we all sympathise, but it seems extraordinary that, in each case, his complaint should have been brought on by inquiries about what was happening to the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill. We were deliberately misled. There are not many ways in which we can express our concern in this place and, in my view, that is good enough reason to support the reasoned amendment—to express our dissatisfaction with the way in which the decisions have been taken.
Let me raise a few specific points about the Bill. Are Ministers considering extending benefits to teachers in other sectors of education—for example, university teachers—who suffer from low pay and poor morale? In particular, what thought has been given to teachers in sixth form colleges and colleges of tertiary education, who have been opted out of the marvellous review system that the Government are establishing, with no real explanation of what is to take its place in their case? They are in an invidious position.
That is especially true of some teachers in my constituency, who work in a sixth form attached to a school in respect of which a move to tertiary status was

approved the day before the Secretary of State made the announcement. They are hardly likely to be pleased with the circumstances into which they have been cast. I suspect that Ministers have not thought the matter through. In any case, those teachers' position is wholly invidious.
I hope that it will be possible to make quick progress and that the matter can be resolved without the need to extend the operation of the interim advisory committee for another year. I know that Ministers want to make progress, but that may not be easy given the present time scale. I should appreciate it if Ministers would spell out the timetable that they envisage end, in particular, when they expect the review body to start its work. Will it be early this autumn or not until next year? At what stage can we expect the review body and Ministers to lay down a timetable within which they expect to work? A measure of consultation earlier in the process would undoubtedly have helped the Government to get the legislation through and, given the way in which they have proceeded, Ministers have only themselves to blame if they experience difficulties.
My concern for speed arises not simply from a desire to try to help the Government to fulfil promises that they have already missed by a couple of years. It seems to me that if the present Bill is a turning point it is because of the benefits that will flow from the establishment of a review body, and no one will want those benefits to be unnecessarily delayed. The sooner teachers get the professional status, financial backing and moral support they deserve, the better it will be for children in schools.

Mr. Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he sees as the difference between a pay review body and the interim advisory committee?

Mr. Taylor: It is not my intention to go into a rather long peroration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be on the Standing Committee. At that stage, the matter that he raises can be debated in detail.

Mr. Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: There are several points that I want to raise, and I do not want to delay the debate unnecessarily. Let us hope that we shall get some answers.
Teachers need to be convinced that the Government recognise the problems they face in their day-to-day work—rundown buildings, insufficient equipment, large classes, mounting bureaucracy, the rapid introduction of the national curriculum and assessment. The list is endless. It is a debate that we have rehearsed. I hope that the introduction of a review body will go some way towards solving the problems, but by no stretch of the imagination should we see it as a final solution.
In view of the status and the pay machinery that the Government want to introduce for teachers, they ought to consider again the creation of a general teaching council. This would be an appropriate time to introduce just that. Such a body would link very well into the review system. There is no doubt that a general teaching council would have things to say. I hope that, in the current climate, Ministers will feel more able to consider taking such a course.
We need clarification, too, of what is meant by the Secretary of State's assertion that the proposals are made on the basis that teachers will not take industrial action. Clearly, there is room for one trade union, or for


individuals in the profession, to take ad hoc action that is not supported by the vast majority. While a state of chaos is hardly likely to encourage the good operation of the review body, I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are no more inclined than is the Labour party to be swayed off course by the individual actions of a handful of teachers, or even of one trade union, particularly in the early days, when there may be inter-union and other political reasons for trying to rock the boat with a view to preventing this proposal from working.
Should such a situation arise, I would regret it most deeply, but I see the potential. It is important that Ministers should say that they would not allow it to distract them from the process on which they are now embarked.
There remains the further important issue of how much direction will be given to what must be a fully independent body and must be seen as such. The Bill as it stands gives the Secretary of State strong powers of direction that other review bodies do not have. This point has been referred to by several hon. Members. I listened carefully to the comments of the Secretary of State, and was glad to hear him make it clear that he does not intend to use those powers. In the nature of events, of course, he may not be in office very long, and whoever succeeds him may have different views.
It is not apparent to me why stronger powers than the Secretary of State says he wants should have been written into the Bill. I therefore hope that, in Committee, Ministers will look carefully at the amendments that will no doubt be tabled. I myself shall seek to introduce amendments to bring the provisions into line with the powers that the Secretary of State says he wants, as distinct from those that, currently, he seems intent on giving himself.
The rush with which this Bill has been introduced disguises another major change that the Government have undertaken to make. I refer to the removal of the power of the local education authorities to opt out of the national settlement. That is a very important and constructive move, which will facilitate the work of the review body. In this regard, Ministers ought to have the humility to confess that they have accepted the arguments, put forward by myself and by Labour Members, stressing that opting out would not be an appropriate course, particularly at the time of the introduction of a whole new structure. Indeed, the two things are contradictory. This time, Ministers avoided the contradiction, and that is to be welcomed.
But there is still the question of the opting out of grant-maintained schools. In this regard, the point that I put to the Secretary of State was not fully answered. The point to which I refer is that, given that the Secretary of State believes that there are real reasons why grant-maintained schools should not wish to opt out of the review body settlements, and that there are serious and genuine concerns about what would happen were they to do so—within a school and, indeed, bearing in mind the knock-on effect outside—it is extraordinary that this Bill requires the Secretary of State automatically to accept a proposal by the governing body of a grant-maintained school, even if the Minister has serious doubts about the way in which it is drawn up, about whether it has been properly considered, and about all its ramifications.
It is most important, at this stage, that Ministers have a reserve power to use their discretion. If the Secretary of

State wants to accept a proposal, he may do so, but why should he not be provided with this power? It is not often that I argue that a Secretary of State ought to have more power than he has given himself, but in this case the protection of teachers and, more important, of pupils and future pupils is a most important consideration.
What is most important of all is that this legislation, after amendment, should provide a review body containing the basis of a teacher pay machinery that is permanent and acceptable, commands widespread support—we may yet get there with the Labour party—and has the confidence of the overwhelming majority of teachers. That will call for the greatest open-mindedness and the widest consultation. In that respect, the Government's record could not be worse. However, the future could be very good indeed if Ministers were prepared to open their minds to suggestions. Perhaps the best thing that could emerge from this debate is a statement of the willingness of Ministers to go into Committee with something that is absent from Minister in most Committees—open minds and a willingness to accept changes such as have been suggested today.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Essential to any modern debate on education reform must surely be the quality of our teachers and the remuneration of the profession, yet it seems to have taken a very long time to get to the stage we have now reached. The responsibility for that delay is, in large part, a result of the fact that are six different teaching unions representing one profession, and of the inability of those unions, particularly in the mid-1980s, to achieve any consensus on negotiated pay settlements. The result was a strike-ridden profession with warring factions which has damaged not only pupils but also the profession. Many teachers have had difficulty recovering from this damage.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) seemed almost to advocate such a lack of consensus—a return to the problems that we saw in the mid-1980s. That would be a retrograde step. If the unions have not been able to agree between themselves, it is hardly surprising that the Government have been faced with a dilemma in deciding how best to approach the settlement of teachers' pay and conditions, and to restore teachers to their rightful place in the community, where the majority will command the respect that they deserve. That is undoubtedly the aim of this Bill. It is not before time, and I welcome it.
Three key factors are vital if our education standards are to be improved. We have heard a lot lately about education. One of the key factors must be an improvement in teachers' morale and an emphasis on professionalism. Secondly, there must be recognition of the benefits of traditional teaching methods, not least in respect of reading, writing and arithmetic. We ought to be able to take these essential foundations for granted. Alas, reports still show that we cannot assume that all teachers are providing them.
The third ingredient is the regular assessment of pupils throughout their school life. Our children are the country's future, and we entrust their future to the capable hands of well-qualified teachers. What is Britain's future in a fiercely competitive Europe if we fail to guarantee all our pupils the best teachers and the best state education?
Over the past 10 years, the Government have examined teaching methods and the assessment of pupils, despite continuous Labour opposition and opposition from some teachers. We Conservatives understand what teachers want and what parents want. We have been determined to act in the best interests of parents and their children. We have not considered sufficiently, and nor have previous Governments, how best to recognise the essential role that is played by teachers in achieving the aims that we have set for them. I agree that in the past few years these aims have been various but vital to our reforms, and have invariably necessitated change.
For too long, declining standards in our schools were ignored, and the rot was allowed to set in. I am sure that we all recognise that a mammoth force was required to bring about change. We could not allow a vociferous minority of militant teachers to try to undermine proposals and to stand in the way of the better future of our pupils that the Government are determined to implement.
Only this Easter, the National Union of Teachers again raised its ugly head and threatened to ensure that our children would not have the assessments that they require, but the falling membership of the NUT—from 259,000 in 1984 to 213,000 in 1989—speaks volumes on behalf of the disenchanted professionals who, I believe, share our sentiments. They have not wished to be shown in the bad light of the NUT. We have heard the NUT's verdicts on the pay review body—
We are totally opposed. It is quite terrifying.
I find it terrifying that it sees the pay review body as terrifying. I am worried that its members are in charge of our children.
The verdicts of the NUT must be compared with those of the Professional Association of Teachers. The association stated:
Burying pay bargaining for teachers"—
I hope that the hon. Member for Hillsborough will listen to this carefully—
is the best news since slavery was abolished in this country. Annual pay bargaining has never done anything for the professional image of teachers. Teachers want to be treated as professionals. That is now going to happen.
Allied to the debate on teachers' pay and the review body must be the debate on appraisal. We must be guaranteed that teachers deserve the review body and in fairness to our competent and dedicated teachers—I have thousands of them in my constituency—I would have introduced teacher assessment long before pupil assessment. It is essential that we identify teachers who need more assistance. If we fail to do so, pupils will suffer unnecessarily.
At last a Government have recognised the need for a review body and the compulsory appraisal of all teachers. To have left the decision in the hands of local authorities—some of them are in favour of appraisal, and some are not—would have been folly. Despite teacher shortages in some subjects, we should be mindful that we must recruit and retain the best teachers. We must not hang on to teachers merely for the sake of keeping up numbers. My experience in many aspects of education has taught me all too often that the teachers who have so much about them are the very ones who are motivated to get out of the profession and to stay out. We must retain the competent

teachers, and we must recognise the merits of advising the incompetent. We do no favours by turning a blind eye to someone who is not cut out for teaching.
If we are to examine the payment of teachers and their terms and conditions, parents will want to be reassured that we shall continue to scrutinise teacher training methods in our colleges to ensure that the "progressives" no longer teach our teachers, who then teach our children, in a rather "progessive" way that does not lead to the best results, as we have seen.
We must be assured that those who want to become teachers have their aptitude for teaching closely and carefully assessed. The question that is still being asked is whether it is too easy to become a teacher. Only in the ways that I have outlined can we raise the status of the profession, and that is the aim of the review body.
The true professionals will surely recognise and welcome the new pay review body, which will not work within any predetermined financial constraints. In addition to pay settlements, it will consider terms and conditions of service. Such a body will recognise for the first time, I believe, the status of teachers. Those of us who visit schools regularly know how demoralised teachers have felt. The Government have kept to their word, and have said that they will give recognition to the value that they place in them.
It is almost unbelievable that the Opposition do not wish to put teachers on a par with other professionals. Surely teachers will be staggered when they learn that the Opposition think that they, teachers, should not be given equal treatment with dentists, doctors, nurses, architects and judges, for example, who all have their own pay review body. What is wrong with teachers? Do they not deserve the same treatment? The Government's proposals will take teachers back to where they belong.
How often have we heard Labour Members criticising us for reducing the morale of teachers? When we are given the opportunity to improve teachers' morale, the Opposition choose to oppose the introduction and implementation of a pay review body. I should like to see a return to the days when teachers were seen as pillars of the community, people who should be applauded and respected. I look forward to the time when a parent can be proud to say that his child will become a teacher. Nowadays, we hear people reject that ambition, and that is a sad reflection of the state that we have reached.
Five out of six teaching unions have recognised the opportunity offered them by the Government. The Bill paves the way by recognising that motivated and good classroom teachers should be rewarded. Seven out of every 10 secondary teachers and half of all primary teachers receive an incentive allowance of some sort. With our reforms of local management of schools and grant-maintained status, we are introducing much greater flexibility. Last week, for example, we heard of a comprehensive school in Bromley that wants to reward its good teachers. In other words, it wishes to ensure that its teachers maintain a standard, which will ensure a certain level of motivation and dedication. Provided that each teacher comes up to standard, I hope that he or she will receive £1,000 in performance-related pay on top of his or her incentive allowances and basic salary.
What is wrong with that? For too long we have worked within too narrow a framework. I am pleased that the Government are opening so many opportunities, but progress could be increased by an examination of


inner-city areas. We used to encourage teachers into areas where they would work under a great deal of stress, and it is sad that the educational priority allowances are no longer paid. I recognise that teachers working in socially deprived areas are often some of our best teachers. If they worked in a school two or three miles away in the greener suburbs, they would receive the same salary as they are receiving in the deprived area. The pay review body should consider whether we should give greater rewards to teachers working in socially deprived areas.
I had hoped tonight to hear what the Labour party intends to do. The Labour party has told us on many occasions that it will place education high on its agenda. I despair of the Labour party, because it has opposed every reform to improve standards and to give parents greater choice and it now opposes a pay review body for teachers. I pray to God that the Labour Government never get their hands on my children. If there were a Labour Government, people would be remortgaging their homes to ensure that they could take their children out of state schools and get them into independent schools. That is a frightening prospect.
The Labour party has said much about the right to strike. What about the right to professionalism? In their opposition to this Bill, the Opposition are out of date and out of touch with the aspirations and desires of the majority of our teachers. The Opposition also talk about spending. We are all aware of the Labour Government's record on spending. Under Labour, teachers' pay rose by a measly 6 per cent. We have increased teachers' pay by 30 per cent. although I hope that the pay review body will recognise that there is room for improvement.
Teachers know that under a Labour Government they would not have the opportunity of a pay review body and would not receive more money or improved conditions. The Labour party has learnt nothing. I am delighted to say that we are now topping off our reforms with one of the most vital ingredients to restore the status of teachers. I shall be proud to support the Bill in the Lobby tonight. Opposition Members will trail across the Floor of the House towards the No Lobby.
Because I believe in our teaching profession, I shall vote for the pay review body, and I believe that the majority of teachers will recognise the Government's good sense.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The speech by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) just about sums up the Tory party and its attitude to education and why the teaching profession is so depressed and has such low morale today.
The Bill is more about the level of local taxes and in particular the poll tax over the next few years, and the review of local government structure, than it is about teachers' pay and conditions. The Government, and in particular the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, frankly do not give a damn about state education, the teachers or their pay and conditions. I wonder whether the Secretary of State cares about state education at all.
I prepared my speech last night. However, I was amazed when I read an account of the recent statement made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to a women's magazine, reported in this morning's Northern Echo. Now I know that he does not give a damn about education.
The Bill is simple in comparison to the first Bill that was rushed through Committee earlier this year. It was rushed through because we were told that the Government were keen to introduce machinery to give negotiating rights back to teachers. Like the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), I believe that the Government have handled teachers' pay and conditions in a shoddy way. They have deceived Parliament.
Education, like everything else, is in a mess. The profession is demoralised. It is working its fingers to the bone, but it is being kicked in the teeth by the Government. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and I agree that the Government are doing a grave disservice to education. The Government are trying to destroy comprehensive education and the state system.
I want to quote the editorial of the Northern Echo—which is not often supportive of the Labour Party—because I believe that it sums up education under the Tories, particularly under the present Secretary of State for Education and Science. It states:
Mr. Clarke has managed to whip up one controversy after another over Britain's schools. First it was the `date-capping' of history, a nonsensical move to stop the teaching of anything which has happened during a child's own lifetime. Recently he dropped the rules introduced by Kenneth Baker in 1988 which prevented opted-out schools becoming grammar schools within five years. Now they can become selective as soon as they want. His theory is that it gives parents a choice of what school they want for their children. In practice, it will doubtless allow the governors a choice of whose children they don't want in their schools. Now Mr. Clarke has launched an attack on those Members of Parliament who send their children to state schools to further their own careers—in other words, he reckons that the state system cannot hold a candle to the independent sector and his opponents should realise it. Mr. Clarke thus reveals deep hostility to the notion of a universal and free education system of which he is the custodian. He says that he has never met anyone who would not have sent their child to an independent school if they could afford it. Such comments show the extent to which the head of our state school system is out of touch with the state. It is true that many parents are considering giving their children a private education—and more in the North are doing so. But this has as much to do with their growing concern about the quality of state education as their alleged confidence in the private sector. And that concern is hardly surprising when the minister responsible for our schools writes them off as second rate.
That just about sums up the Secretary of State's attitude to education.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member is developing a thesis in which he claims that Conservative Members do not use the state education system, and that is of course nonsense. I for one use it. Does he accept that Conservative local education authorities such as Harrow and Barnet produce decent results, while Labour authorities such as the late and unlamented Inner London education authority produce pretty awful results?

Mr. Steinberg: I can speak only for my local education authority and the authorities about which I am aware. I am proud to send my kids to a state school. I do not need the independent sector. A headline in the press this morning read "Labour Children are Sacrificed." My kids have never been sacrificed. My daughter went to Belmont school, the local comprehensive. She then went to Framwellgate Moor, which is a good school in Durham. where she took her O and A-levels. She is now studying law at Nottingham. That is not failure, and my daughter was not sacrificed for the sake of the independent sector.
I have no qualms about sending my children to the state system, but I wonder how many Government Front-Bench Members have qualms about sending theirs to the state system.
Because the Government are putting the dogma of the marketplace into education, schools are being forced to compete with one another for students. They are getting less and less money—unless, of course, they opt out of local education control or they are city technology colleges. The private sector has been expanded both openly through the assisted places scheme and deviously with schools being encouraged to be selective by back-door methods.
The whole country is worried about our education system, which has become a major political issue, and naturally and rightly so. Without a well-educated population, we cannot compete with our European counterparts. While our European partners and rivals invest in education and training, what do our Government do? They test seven-year-olds. It is vital that more resources are devoted to education in our schools. Higher standards can be achieved only by having high-quality teachers. What do we have? We have schools that are falling down, severe teacher shortages with few high-quality people entering the profession, and many good teachers leaving the profession.
Many teachers are demoralised by the poor esteem in which they are held. Many work under great pressure in under-resourced schools. Their professional competence is questioned time and again by the Government and by members of the Conservative party. The work load of teachers has increased dramatically with the introduction of the national curriculum and standard assessment tasks. The lack of time and resources only adds to the pressure on teachers. Teachers feel absolutely overwhelmed.
Very recently, I received a letter from Mrs. Warburton, the head teacher of an infant school in Durham, Belmont County infants school. She said:
When I was appointed as Head Teacher of this school in 1989 I was given to understand that LMS would not concern schools of this size until after 1994. 'Good'—I thought—`Time to implement the National Curriculum, get used to Assessment, then when all this is up and running I'll have time to devote to managing a budget.' Alas, it was not to be.
The work load is almost unmanageable. One feels that one cannot do one job properly because there are so many other urgent demands. The most unfortunate effect I feel is that I am losing touch with what is happening in the classrooms—I have so very little time to spend there—I know it is not my job to teach as such, yet how can I make decisions and advise the staff if I do not have contact with the children? … We are more than happy to accept extra relevant work which will enable our pupils to realise their full potential. But is spending my time in an office with mountains of paperwork and insufficient clerical staff hours relevant to the education of these pupils? I'm afraid I feel that some sort of it is not, and that my training is being wasted.
She said that in the past couple of weeks she and her staff have felt depressed. They wonder what is the point. They cannot see the credit for the good job that they are doing. That is typical of virtually every teacher in the country today. Every teacher feels overworked, underpaid and depressed because of the Government.
To add to all that, most telling is the way in which teachers' pay has fallen in relation to average earnings. The Government claim that teachers' pay has risen dramatically. The earnings of other occupations with

which teaching must compete have risen far faster. The Government point to the period since the abolition of teachers' negotiating rights and the introduction of the interim advisory committee in 1987. According to evidence that was given by the Department of Education and Science to the Select Committee, teachers' salaries were 116 per cent. of average non-manual earnings. The first phase of implementation of the 1990 pay award saw it fall to 104 per cent. By the end of the second stage of the award, it had fallen to 97 per cent.
To reinstate the position that teachers had in 1987 would have required an additional 13·8 per cent. To bring it back to the levels that were laid down by Houghton in 1974 would have needed an extra 40 per cent. However, in 1991, what do teachers actually receive? The IAC recommended a pay increase of 8·4 to 10·1 per cent. for the teaching profession and that teachers should receive 9 per cent. from 1 April 1991. The Secretary of State said that he accepted that in full. As we all know, that is a con because he has implemented the rise from 1 April at 7·5 per cent. and a further 1·5 per cent. from 1 December. In other words, not only have teachers not caught up to the 1987 or 1974 levels but they are now £1·50 a week worse off for every £100 that they earn until 1 December. That is a further erosion of their salaries and the result of a pay settlement that has been imposed on teachers.

Mr. John Marshall: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has lost not only me but all hon. Members in his comments about absolutes and relativities. However, does he accept that teachers' pay has gone up substantially in real terms? If he says that other professions have done even better, does not that underline the fact that all real incomes in this country have risen substantially since 1979?

Mr. Steinberg: I ask the hon. Gentleman to ask many people in the teaching profession, and in many other professions for that matter, whether their wages have increased in real terms since 1987 or 1979. We have only to ask them how much more they pay for their mortgages in 1991 than they paid in 1979. Teachers and members of other professions in the public sector have dropped further and further behind, with teachers being in a worse position than the majority of other workers.
We cannot recruit and retain teachers, either now or in future, when their salaries are so uncompetitive. In that context, great importance attaches to the way in which teachers' remuneration and conditions of service will be determined in future. The original School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill was bad, and I said so on many occasions on Second Reading and in Committee. However, at least it provided teachers with the opportunity to negotiate with their employers. This Bill takes that right from them.
The No. 2 Bill is appalling. It introduces a pay review body which by definition denies the right to free collective bargaining between employers and employees. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and I have said, the International Labour Organisation has twice upheld complaints from the National Union of Teachers that the Government's withdrawal of teachers' negotiating rights breached its convention on free collective bargaining to which the British Government are a signatory.
Despite the ILO's call for the Government to make arrangements for teachers' pay to be determined by


collective bargaining, the Government have refused to comply with that international ruling. The Bill makes it absolutely clear that the Government have no intention of restoring schoolteachers' negotiating rights. To address the current problems of recruitment, retention and the work load of the teacher, it is vital for direct negotiations to take place between employers and teachers.
Employers have experience and understanding of the implications of changes to teachers' pay and conditions that would be lacking in a Government-appointed body. I completely reject the principle of a review body at the expense of negotiating rights. There cannot be any confidence in pay review bodies when the findings of similar bodies for nurses, doctors, dentists, paramedical staff, the armed forces, senior civil servants and members of the judiciary have been modified in seven out of the past eight years. The only time the Government made no variations in the recommendations or findings of the review bodies was in 1987—and we all know what happened in 1987.
Under the Bill, the Prime Minister is to appoint the review body and its chairman. How can that be seen as independent? To make matters worse, the Secretary of State for Education and Science then directs the review body and determines what can be referred to it, giving the teachers and their employers no opportunity to raise matters of national importance or significance to the profession. How can that be independent? Having set up the body, the Secretary of State reserves the right to ignore its recommendations and then, independently, autocratically and autonomously, makes other provision "as he thinks fit".
To make matters worse, and just in case all that has not castrated the review body sufficiently, in consultation with the chairman—remember, he has been appointed by the Prime Minister—the Secretary of State can bypass the procedure completely; and all that after the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Education and Science a few weeks ago that he did not meddle in the running of schools. He has now given himself the power to intervene in any school on staffing matters, payments for teachers or changes in teachers' conditions of service.
Clause 3 builds in what I suspect is the real purpose of the Bill—the encouragement of school-by-school arrangements. With continual Government pressure for schools to opt out, I suspect that it is intended that the review body shall be an interim body, with local education authorities eventually disappearing from sight.
Thus I find the Bill dishonest—the hidden agenda remains totally hidden. The Bill is about the control of education. It is about giving the opportunity for central control of strategic policy, coupled with a denial of the right of proper negotiation at any level on pay and conditions. Despite what Conservative Members have said, that can lead only to continued frustration for the teaching profession, causing greater recruitment and retention problems in the long run.
Where are the real changes in the proposals from what happens now with the present interim advisory committee? Frankly, as I read the Bill, there are no changes at all. Everything will be exactly the same, but given a different name. Yet again, the Government have broken their promises.
The consultations of the past three years on the restoration of negotiating rights have meant absolutely nothing. As I said earlier in an intervention, only a few

months ago Ministers were arguing for the restoration of negotiating rights—albeit that it was flawed—but now, presumably next week when the Bill is in Committee, Ministers will argue against the restoration of negotiating rights. They do not know where they are.
Like the entire Government and the majority of Conservative Members, Ministers are absolutely shell-shocked. We have had Bill No. 1 on this and Bill No. 2 on that. We have had so many U-turns over the past 12 months that this place looks more like Brands Hatch or Silverstone than the place from which the Government run the country. The truth is that this Government are no longer fit to govern. They continually get things wrong. They do one thing, but shortly afterwards have to change it because of the mess that they made.
Whatever the Secretary of State may say, this is a time of severe teacher shortages. Recruitment and retention are crucial and the profession's morale is at an all-time low. How many of us have visited schools in our constituencies only to hear teachers say, "Thank God I have reached the age when I can apply for early retirement"? Only last week, a group of sixth formers came down to visit me from a school in Durham. The teacher with them said that he had now reached the age of 50 and, thank God, was leaving the profession. He said that he was sick to death of it and glad to get out. He knew that there was about to be a review body because I reminded him of it, but it did not seem to make him want to change his opinion.
The Bill serves to undermine education still further. The proposed legislation is totally unacceptable. We live in a society that subscribes to the principle of free collective bargaining between employer and employee, where a worker has the right to withdraw his labour and to take industrial action. The Secretary of State implied that the pay review body would be dependent on a no-strike agreement. If I were still a teacher, I would never have given that guarantee. I would not forfeit my democratic rights, and I believe that many teachers will agree with my sentiment. I totally reject the proposal for a pay review body at the expense of free collective bargaining and the restoration of teachers's negotiating rights.

Mr. David Madel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to detain you, but we have just heard a rather long speech. Do you agree that there may be a case for imposing the 10-minute rule between now and 9 o'clock to allow more of us to speak? [Interruption.] The Opposition have had their say.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am getting slightly anxious about the length of speeches and the number of hon. Members who still wish to speak. I hope that those who are fortunate enough to be called will bear that in mind.

Mr. Alan Amos: I shall endeavour to avoid causing you any anxiety, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Bill is very good for the teaching profession and therefore for education. It is eminently reasonable and fair, and it is sad but significant to see the Opposition thrashing about rather unconvincingly to try to find reasons to oppose it. What do the Opposition put first—the right of one union to undertake industrial actions, or the educational future of our youngsters?
With the many other hon. Members who have welcomed the Government's proposals in the Bill, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the flexibility, insight and common sense that he has shown in responding to a changed situation, and having the guts to put into effect a measure that deserves to be welcomed by everybody who genuinely has the best interests of both teachers and school children at heart.
Let there be no doubt—this is a watershed in our educational system. The main thrust of the new proposals is to bestow a level of professionalism and status on teachers that they totally deserve. What could be more laudable than to raise the professional status of the teaching force by determining their pay and conditions via an independent review body—I stress the word "independent"—reporting direct to the Prime Minister, in exactly the same way as we handle doctors, dentists, nurses, the armed forces, senior civil servants, and judges?
The review body will be comprehensive in its scope and impartial in its decisions. Its main task will be to establish a system that will recruit and retain good teachers and thereby build upon the already much improved career structure introduced by the Government in recent years. There will be no cash limit or predetermined financial constraint upon the deliberations of the review body, but the Secretary of State must, of course, lay down certain guidelines and other considerations in the national interest. All interested bodies, including the employers, will be consulted and evidence taken from a very wide range of organisations. There will not even have to be a 'no strike agreement'.
I do not believe that any reasonable group of people could seriously argue that these conditions are in any way onerous or unfair, or against their interests. The fact is that the other review bodies work very well and the staff involved have never expressed any desire to get rid of them. All the groups covered in this way are professions and I maintain that strike action is inherently incompatible with the status of professionals. Strikes and other forms of action are the proper and legitimate tools of industrial unions, not of groups such as teachers. We want teachers to be professionals, and we intend to treat them as such.
The other reason why all teachers should welcome the establishment of an independent review body is that review body recommendations are usually implemented in full, although occasionally phased in over a short transitional period. Under clause 2, the Secretary of State will also have a fair amount of flexibility in the way in which he can give effect to the body's recommendations.
In addition, I commend clause 5(3), which will sensibly avoid any misunderstanding about what are, and what are not, extra-curricular responsibilities. In any case, the Bill makes it clear that negotiations between local education authorities and teachers can still take place on non-statutory conditions of employment.
A review body will raise the importance of any settlement on pay and conditions to a higher level than any amount of collective bargaining could. In taking evidence from all interested bodies, a full hearing and full consideration will be given to the complete spectrum of teaching concerns. The days when not only the country but the future of our children was held to ransom by the whims

and prejudices of the more militant teaching unions is at an end. It has been claimed that the right to strike has been removed from the teaching profession, and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred to
the … removal of the right to strike which the statement implies.
The facts do not bear that out. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman would realise if he were in his seat, there is no intention to write a no strike clause into the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said earlier that that was the case, and when he responded to the hon. Member for Blackburn on 17 April he said of the right to strike:
We are not going to take away that right by law."—[Official Report, 17 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 435–36.]
So let us squash that bogus argument once and for all.
In any case, why can Opposition Members not accept that, in treating teachers as a profession, it is fair to expect them to reciprocate? By insisting on an absolute right to take industrial action, they are refusing to accept that sensible and professional decisions can be reached by an independent body. The Opposition must accept that teachers can make intelligent decisions that do not rely on the fear and destructive nature of industrial action. Let there be no doubt that the only people who suffer from industrial action are the children who are too often left to cope with public exams and decisions on their future without the help and backing from the striking teachers who are more concerned with obtaining a few more pounds in their pay packets than helping the children in their care. I am proud to say that, when I was a teacher in a state comprehensive, I refused to take any form of industrial action.
Indeed, the unions and most teachers have had a pay review body for a long time. Pay review is supported by five out of the six recognised teacher bodies. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has warmly welcomed the proposals and has given them strong support, as has the Secondary Heads Association, the Professional Association of Teachers and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association. In a letter sent to a number of my colleagues today, AMMA says that it welcomes
the recognition of school teachers' professional commitment now offered by Ministers".
It also says that AMMA
greatly welcome the basis upon which the Secretary of State has brought forward this new proposal.
Only NUT officials seem to be opposed to the plans. Why can the Opposition not accept that these proposals are what the teachers themselves want, and that Labour can no longer impose strike action, through its union friends, on teachers who do not want it? Those days are over. Why do the Opposition insist on refusing to listen to what teachers want, and what is in their best interests?
It is significant that the teacher organisations that support a review body are all associations: NAS, SHA, PAT and AM MA. It is opposed only by the National Union of Teachers, which shows a difference of emphasis and outlook by the unions.
The Opposition are obsessed with collective bargaining and with industrial action. They want to impose the negotiating rights of an industrial trade union onto a professional body. The teaching profession will gain much more from an independent review body than any number of negotiating rights. In the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, the Government have shown the desire to


reconsider new proposals. It would have been easier for the Government to have pressed ahead with the original Bill. There is no reason to stick to the original proposals when the opportunity for a better one comes along, and especially one that the teachers themselves want. Most important of all, the work of the existing review bodies has ensured that the other professions have kept up in real terms. That is an essential fact.
When one looks at the Government's proud record on education during the past 12 years, one can clearly see that, in any case, there is absolutely no need for industrial action and strikes. Between 1979 and 1990, the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools improved from 23·1 to 22·0 and in secondary schools from 16·7 to 15·3. Government spending over the same period in real terms is up from £22·2 billion to £25·1 billion; spending per capita in nursery and primary schools, again in real terms, is up from £943 to £1,100, an increase of 15 per cent.; in secondary schools it is up from £1,327 to £1,690, a significant increase of 22 per cent.; and the number of school leavers with five or more GCSEs, or equivalents, is the highest ever at 31·9 per cent., and the figure for the percentage of 18-year-olds achieving one or more A-level passes, at 17·6 per cent. is also the highest yet.
What the independent pay review body offers is exactly what teachers want—a recognition of their status and a commensurate financial reward—a professional means of dealing with pay and conditions. As a teacher in a state comprehensive school for eight years, I know that to be the case. The nature of a teacher's job is of necessity undergoing a fundamental and long overdue change, both in what is taught and how it is taught: the national curriculum, local management, standardised testing, teacher appraisal and so on. All these place extra burdens and responsibilities on the teaching force. We are asking them to be more professional, better trained and more highly qualified, skilled and flexible. I am therefore pleased that we are now setting up the machinery by which we will recognise that fact. As a former chairman of an education committee, I remember only too well the regular, predictable prolonged chaos and uncertainty under the old free-for-all negotiating chaos of the Burnham committee. It was an absolute shambles. The interim advisory committee has done a lot of good work, but it was never a full or permanent solution to this matter.
Because local councils run education and spend the money, but central Government pay the bills, we have a structure in which accountability and responsibility are a mess. The review body will elevate teachers' pay and conditions on to a much simpler and more professional level, and that is why I fully support the Bill.
I pay tribute to the vast majority of the teachers in my constituency, whom I have met as I go round visiting the schools, who maintaian a good standard of discipline and produce good public examination results. They are dedicated, want to make a success of the reforms, want to get on with their jobs, and be treated as professionals. They want nothing to do with the trade union-minded militant minority of left-wing trouble makers and union officials who, by their behaviour and repeated industrial action year in and year out in recent years, have undermined the whole profession. That is something that the Government are now putting right.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) in his warm tribute to teachers, who have, in the main, remained loyal professionals and have continued the difficult task of educating our children through the many changes that they have undergone during a turbulent and difficult period. However, I take issue with him when he describes the Government's record in the past decade as "proud". Teaching has been turbulent and difficult, and it has not been recognised as a profession.
I welcome the change in emphasis towards teachers and the recognition of teaching as a profession. I welcome the implicit commitment to acknowledge their status and to improve their pay. In that spirit, I welcome the pay review body.
Earlier in the debate, hon. Members were vying with one another about their credentials, saying who had experienced state education and whose children were being educated in the state system. My credentials are impeccable. I was educated in the state system and my children are being educated in that system in London, where it has been undergoing an especially difficult time following the break up of the Inner London education authority. Education at both sixth-form secondary level and primary level—as I know from the experience of my three children—has survived only because of the dedication and professionalism of the many teachers who have stayed the course.
That is not to say that I have not observed periods of intense disruption as a result of the industrial action of three or four years ago. I think that some of the problems now experienced by sixth forms in London are a direct consequence. During their second, third and fourth years of secondary education, some children lost contact with their school and their teachers, and have never regained it.
Some parents, of course, have the commitment—and, perhaps, the money—to enable their children to retake their exams, and to stay the course by patching things up with extra French lessons and so forth. Not all of them have the commitment or the wherewithal to do so, however, and other children have paid the price of the appalling disruption that we saw a few years ago. That is why I am wholeheartedly committed to any action that removes teachers from the striking arena: such action can only be to the good.
Many teachers—including many of the better ones—have lost heart and left the profession in recent years. Although I have criticised the Government's education record, I can honestly say that I have seen as many teachers leave as a result of the excesses of the ILEA. I supported reform of the ILEA rather than its abolition, but I know that the task of teachers has been made near-impossible by the pressure imposed by wayward local education authorities in some areas, and by their unacceptable interventions in the form of "isms" from here, there and everywhere. We must devise a suitable pay mechanism, which will attract and retain teachers of the right calibre and ensure that they stay.
The SDP has long been committed to the establishment of a pay review body. As early as 1985, we advocated in a Green Paper that a system should be set up to determine public sector pay, which would be recognised as fair and which would keep public sector groups broadly in line with their private sector counterparts. Our main concern then,


as now, was that the system should be independent, and that disagreements should be settled through arbitration. We hoped that that would be accompanied by a no industrial action agreement, into which the teachers would enter freely for recognition of their professional status.
That is the right approach, and it is long overdue. I must emphasise, however, that I believe that it would work much better in the context of a general teaching council, which has already been mentioned this evening. We need a self-regulatory body of teachers and for teachers, to monitor standards, approve training, adjudicate and raise professional standards.
Although I consider the attraction and retention of teachers of the right calibre a vital ingredient, and although I firmly believe that structural changes achieve nothing unless those teachers are in place, I also think that some of the structural changes in the pipeline will prove detrimental.
We did not support the Education Reform Act 1988, for two reasons. First, as I have said, we advocated the reform rather than the abolition of the ILEA. Secondly, for reasons closely connected with today's debate, we had grave reservations about grant-maintained schools—especially because we could not obtain a reassurance from the then Secretary of State that grant-maintained status would not be used as a way of returning to selectivity. The last thing I want is a return to the old secondary modern and grammar school system.
That is not to say, however, that I do not believe that mistakes were made in the comprehensive system. I do not want to stray too far from the subject of the debate, but let me throw an idea into the melting pot. I believe that the comprehensive schools failed because we made them much too large. We did that so that each school would generate a viable sixth form; the old grammar schools attracted less than a third of the pupils.
The comprehensives failed all round. They were too large to accommodate children aged 11, 12 and 13; the children lost contact with their teachers; headmasters did not know individual pupils; and they failed in their essential task of creating viable sixth forms. It is now all too common for London comprehensives, even the largest, to form consortia and seek sixth form college arrangements to try to make their sixth forms work. I think that it would have been much better for the comprehensive system if we had aimed for schools for 11 to 16-year-olds, along with tertiary colleges. Then the comprehensives would not have had to be so large.
Young people change. At 16, they are in many ways too old to want to be schoolchildren, while not being old enough to enter an adult college. A break from school at the age of 16 would allow them to enter an environment that would be halfway between school and college.
I know to my cost—and I have talked to many other parents who feel the same—that it is too much to ask 16 to 19-year-olds to be given too much responsibility. It is too much to expect them always to know where they should be, and to be there when no one else will know whether they are there or not. At that age, young people develop interests outside their studies, and, if they lose track of school or school loses track of them, they have not the motivation or the commitment to complete the A-level or further education studies.
Not only are too few pupils staying on because of the present system; many others are falling by the wayside. It would, I think, be a great pity if the testing that I have tentatively approved were used to reintroduce selectivity at the age of 11, but testing has a vital part to play. If a general teaching council were established, teachers would, as a body, accept the principles entailed in conducting those tests and using them sensibly.
Next week and the week after, I shall see seven-year-olds being tested at school, and shall be able to judge for myself. Judging by my preliminary conversations with teachers, however, I believe that their anxieties focus not on the nature of testing or on whether it is right, but on the fact that they are not receiving the support in their schools that would release them from their duty to teach the rest of the class. For several days—perhaps weeks—they will be dealing with small groups of children, putting them through the tests. Head teachers and supply teachers are having to be diverted.
What else can be done to improve the staying-on rate? That is an important part of the overall question. It is a travesty that we are now lower in the league tables than countries such as Korea and Thailand; there can be no justification for that. I urge the Government to reconsider the introduction of education maintenance allowances for 16 to 19-year-olds, many of whom are in no man's land, where financial support from their parents is uncertain. If the parent is on income support, that dries up for them and young people find it impossible to continue their education.
I welcome the pay review body. I should prefer an independent general teaching council. I should also prefer arbitration. However, we have taken a major step in the right direction.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I listened with great interest to the balanced speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). I was particularly interested in what she had to say about education for 16 to 19-year-olds. It is tempting to develop my ideas on that subject. I must admit that, for some time, I have been enthusiastic about a professional teachers' council that would be not too far removed from a general teaching council. That subject has been raised in all parts of the House at various times during the debate. The most important point to come out of the hon. Lady's speech is that she and her colleagues support the idea of a pay review body for teachers. It was perfectly clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that he and his colleagues also support the idea.
The most extraordinary feature of the debate so far is the total confusion in the ranks of the Labour party. I am not at all clear what the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) meant. Later in the debate, perhaps it will be made clear. However, what is clear is that some Labour Opposition Members are totally opposed to these ideas. In their case, at least I understood their arguments; otherwise, confusion seems to reign.
The main reason for my participation in the debate is to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) said. He said that this is one of the most important developments in education for some time. Since I, together with many of my colleagues, have been arguing for a pay review body for teachers, I can only regard this


as one of the pleasantest opportunities to speak in a debate that I can recall. This is a good step, and I support it 100 per cent.
It was extraordinary to hear some Labour Opposition Members—for example, the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—state at great length that they were not arguing for a return to the chaotic Burnham negotiations, but that is precisely what they were arguing for. There is no way in which they or their National Union of Teachers colleagues can pretend otherwise. They want Burnham back.
I taught for 23 years. Burnham was not popular with teachers. It did not deliver a good deal for them. It was also counter-productive. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby developed that theme, and there is no need for me to develop it further. We do not want to go back to Burnham. That is why I regard the Bill as a major step forward, which I strongly support.
The hon. Member for Truro said that the first School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill was a waste of time. I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and I do not agree. I remember, together with a few of my colleagues, using the opportunity that the Bill afforded to develop the argument for an independent pay review body when the time was suitable. I must admit that at that time I did not realise that the suitable time would be quite so soon, but I do not complain about that.
What is even more important, in the context of the details of the Bill, is that, together with a number of my colleagues, I remember arguing that provision should be made for a consultation process within grant-maintained schools, if they should decide to dissociate themselves or separate themselves from the pay process. If I read it correctly, that provision is incorporated in clause 3.
What I hope will become clear when the Bill is debated in Committee is whether a measure of local pay bargaining will be allowed. I believe that there should be an independent pay review body, so I support the Bill. However, I see no reason why there should not be an element of local pay bargaining—for example. where special local conditions cause a shortage of teachers, or where there is a shortage of specialist teachers, or where there may be other good reasons for local pay bargaining. I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he winds up the debate.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I am interested in the consistency of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Earlier, he said that national pay negotiations would lead to conflict, and he equated bargaining with industrial action. At local level, however, he does not equate bargaining with industrial action. What is the difference?

Mr. Thompson: Having heard the speeches of some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, I doubt whether I shall be able to persuade him that I believe that there is no correspondence between the chaotic Burnham system, so well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby who had experience of it before he became a Member of Parliament, and a measure of local pay bargaining at school level. The important point is that I believe that it is right to move towards a pay review body. The other one is icing on the cake. I hope that I shall hear later from the Minister that, by some means or another, local pay bargaining can be introduced.
There is wide support for a pay review body. Individual teachers support it. They have done so for years. Moreover, the majority of the teachers' unions are in favour of the proposal. There is also widespread support for it on both sides of the House. Like my hon. Friends, I believe that this is the best opportunity that teachers have had in my lifetime to be regarded as a truly professional body. I cannot emphasise that point too strongly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) paid tribute to the many good teachers in his constituency. The majority of teachers are good professional people. They will no doubt welcome his encouragement for their professional status to be further enhanced. Those who do not act professionally will find that the measure helps to put that right, in that it will encourage them to be more professional.
I am delighted that the Bill also enables us to discuss strike action is schools. When I was a member of the teaching profession, many teachers never took industrial action and many who did took it reluctantly. They did not want to take industrial action, but they felt compelled to do so. It must be a good step forward if we can devise a system in which we move away from industrial action in our schools. That is why I so strongly support not just the Bill but the thinking behind it. It has come rather later than I should have liked, but now that it has finally arrived, I welcome it. Children should no longer have to experience strike action in their schools. It does them a disservice, and I support the Secretary of State's proposal.
I hope that one small point will be considered when teachers' pay is debated, either now or later. I support those who have already said that, in considering teachers' pay, we should deal in particular with the pay of experienced classroom teachers. I cannot emphasise too much that it does our schools no good if our system encourages good classroom teachers to believe that they must become head teachers, deputy head teachers, local government officers or HMIs if they are to earn more money. That point was emphasised during an intervention. I strongly support those hon. Members who feel that it should be made worth their while for good teachers to stay in the classroom. They should not have to regard it as natural to get out of the classroom to earn more money for their families.
There has been much talk in the debate about the morale and status of the teaching profession. I do not intend to say a great deal about that, apart from pointing out that other countries have a similar problem. We must not be misled into believing that this is a peculiarly British problem. It is one that we share with our continental neighbours and with the United States of America.
I hope that the Bill is part of a package of measures to address the problem of teachers' morale, status and professionalism, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will use this opportunity to examine teacher training. I recently spoke to one or two young people who have attended teacher training colleges, as a result of which some of them gave up the idea of teaching.
I have always thought that my view of teacher training was rather archaic. Perhaps I am prejudiced, but I still believe that trendy ideas are too much to the fore, that there is political indoctrination in teacher training colleges and that many of the lecturers have an inadequate knowledge of the subject that they are supposed to be teaching. When one hears what goes on in many of our


teacher training colleges, it is a shocking indictment. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take some action.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Does what the hon. Gentleman has just said represent simply his own feelings on the matter, or has he real evidence for his allegations? All the colleges running B.Ed. and postgraduate courses have been approved by the Department of Education and Science. If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, it is a serious matter, and specific colleges should be investigated.

Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would recall that I was wondering whether it was my own prejudice, although I had spoken to people who had been through the system and attended teacher training colleges over the years. I am not suggesting that all teacher training colleges are the same or that all lecturers are the same, but most people would agree that the overall picture is not good. Hon. Members' views may differ, but I am sure that they will agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who I am glad to see in his place, should take the earliest opportunity to examine what is going on in teacher training colleges.
As pay, curriculum reform and other matters that are central to the organisation of our education system are very much under the influence, if not the control, of my right hon. Friend, I suggest that, following the successful transfer to the centre of funding of polytechnics and further education colleges, we should look again at the role of local education authorities.
Since the recent debates on local government finance, the local education authorities expect changes and reform, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not duck the challenge of that aspect of education. Labour local authorities have certainly failed in their administration of education. Labour Members have failed to explain their attitude to the Bill this evening, and recent statements show that the Labour party is still facing in the wrong direction on education.
The Bill is a breakthrough for those of us who want to enhance the quality, status and professionalism of teachers. I welcome it as a vital step towards a better education system, and I am delighted to give it 100 per cent. support.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Mid-Staffordshire): Nineteen eighty-eight was certainly a year for teachers to remember. It saw the introduction of the Education Reform Act and the demise of teachers' rights to collective bargaining and pay negotiations. Those two factors, and the decline in their relative pay and conditions of service, have had a considerable effect on teachers.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) referred to the disgraceful way in which Education Ministers treated the House in their handling of the previous Bill on teachers' pay. In endorsing his comments, I add that that was yet another example of the disgraceful way in which the Conservative Government and Education Ministers have treated the teaching profession.
Having spoken to teachers and head teachers in my constituency, I want to talk about the real views, concerns and conditions of those working in education. Low morale

related to pay and conditions is a major talking point among the teaching profession. All teachers I met referred to the Education Reform Act and the many demands that it has placed upon class teachers, heads of department, deputies and head teachers. They have all said that the changes have been too many and too fast.
They have all been critical of the mountains of paperwork they receive and their lack of time to cope with the new demands. They complain about the lack of time to prepare and plan for all the extras in the national curriculum as well as the daily demands of teaching—perhaps a class of 32 lively youngsters. The range of subjects and the methods of teaching mean that there are many practical activities which require much more planning and preparation.
Time is also a problem for head teachers. The introduction of local management of schools means that much of the administrative work previously undertaken by the local education authorities now has to be carried out by head teachers. They have to make time available for attending additional meetings of governors and subcommittees. They have to make time to deal with finance, although most of them are not and do not want to be accountants and administrators. Those additional responsibilities mean a reduction in the time available for head teachers to maintain contact with pupils and staff. They receive no additional payment or extra help.
When Labour politicians talk about teachers' morale, they are accurately reflecting what they have been told by those in the front line—the teachers at the chalk face, those working in the classrooms. The teachers I have spoken to are all struggling to maintain morale, and they rely mainly on one another to boost that morale. They feel undervalued and under stress. I make no apology for repeating what has already been said in the debate.
A general practitioner neighbour of mine speaks of diagnosing "Baker depression" among teachers. Regardless of who is the present Secretary of State, the originator of many of the problems was his predecessor, the current Home Secretary. We must now avoid any further lowering of morale as teachers have less control over their conditions of service and more leave the profession as a result.
Those in the profession are keen to maintain and improve the quality of education. Ministers are keen on talking about that, but if it is to be achieved, we require teachers who are professionally trained, who have self-esteem and who feel that they are valued. Conditions of service and working conditions are extremely important. The Labour party has often referred to our crumbling schools, in which the majority of children are taught and the majority of teachers work. Teachers face difficult conditions in the classroom and in what is available to help them to cope with the many problems of children in our schools today. Teachers have to deal not just with practical teaching problems but with the emotional difficulties that children, and therefore teachers themselves, have to face.
State schools are staffed by high-quality teachers and, despite the difficulties under which they work, the results they achieve are good. Teachers in Mid-Staffordshire and throughout the country want proper recognition of their professional training and skills and of the responsibility that we place on them to provide the motivation and education that this country desperately needs for its children.
Teachers have seen their pay decline in recent years, and have had no increase in real terms since 1987. The many teachers who leave the profession show their dissatisfaction with their pay and conditions of service. Issues relating to conditions of service are complicated, but a pay review does not negotiate but merely allocates.
Since 1988, there have been many unresolved problems for the teaching profession such as supply teachers' pay, cover duties and increments. It is therefore understandable that those who accept the review body instead of having their negotiating rights returned do so with reservations. It is understandable, too, when one considers the term "independent review body", but reads in the Bill the intervention powers that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have on composition and on the directives that can be given. Those comments were admirably made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg).
The teachers and children of this country deserve a better deal from this Government. The teachers of this country deserve a fair deal—and they certainly have not had one from the Conservative Administration.

Mr. David Madel: The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) mentioned school buildings. I agree that we need to make more rapid progress in improving them. I hope that the new council tax will lead to a more stable and fairer revenue support grant system that will stop pulling money from counties in the south, such as Bedfordshire, to those in the north without having regard, as the RSG has had, to the need for school buildings. Bedfordshire is somewhat behind, but I hope that the new system of council tax and of allocating resources will lead to the improvement for which Conservative Members and the hon. Lady have called.
I welcome the Bill, as an imaginative attempt to solve the issue of teachers' pay, after an extremely disturbed position in part of the past decade. I hope that the review body will remember that if, as I believe, we are heading for a decade of low inflation, there is no need to recommend a one-year deal for teachers' pay; it should be perfectly possible to recommend a two or three-year deal. Such deals are being made in parts of industry because they lead to greater stability and free management from time and negotiation. If the Government succeed in keeping inflation low, what works effectively for the private sector could easily work well for the public sector.
One of the review body's first tasks should be to consider how teachers' duties have been extended, what is expected of them and how the position has changed in the past 10 years. As has been said many times in the debate, there has been no lack of new initiatives since 1980, and there has been no education drift. There has been GCSE course work, the technical and vocational education initiative, the national curriculum, AS-levels and records of achievement, to name but a few. All those changes need time to show their importance, so we need time to measure thoroughly and accurately how successful they have been. A common thread has been the increase in non-teaching support to ensure that the initiatives succeed.
In deciding what to recommend on teachers' statutory conditions of employment, I hope that the review body will pay particular regard to the need carefully to consider

how best to use teachers' time. We all want quality teaching, which includes lesson preparation, teaching, marking, examining and extra-curricular activities, but conditions of employment must recognise that teachers need time to think about the development of the curriculum and how they are planning their work. In the next 10 years, the development of the curriculum will be important for the improvement of education standards.
A modern industrial society will inevitably require the curriculum, particularly the science and technology part, to change. I welcome the fact that business is much more involved in the school curriculum and is putting forward its ideas. However, not only employers but the craft and skill unions have a contribution to make in suggesting how the curriculum should develop, and most certainly have a contribution to make in explaining how changes in the curriculum have affected work on the factory floor, especially in the skills that we need. I want the extension of the partnership between education and business to include the skill and craft trade unions. The pay review body must consider such matters, because at the heart of its work are the conditions of employment for teachers and development of the curriculum.
Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State to give direction to the review body on the considerations to which they should have regard and the time within which they are required to report. I want to make a point about teachers' hours of work and education duties which, if considered sensibly by the review body, may lead to an improvement in classroom standards. Much evidence shows the importance of homework and that, if it is done properly and regularly, and if it is major aim and ethos of a school, it translates into a much better examination performance and creates improved classroom atmosphere. In many homes, it is simply not possible for young people to have the necessary peace and quiet, and freedom from interruption, to complete homework. Young people should be able voluntarily to stay on after school to do their homework, but that would require teacher-only supervision. It is no good imagining that volunteers could do the job; teachers would be needed.
I hope that, in its recommendations, the review body will recognise that a teachers' contract of employment may include a requirement to supervise homework at school and that we shall not have an argument between the profession, the review body and the Government on how far such duties extend. I stress that that would be voluntary and that it is impossible to say how many schools will take advantage of it, but in some parts of the country pupils are encouraged to stay at school to do their homework.
I hope that there will be increasing recognition that that is a good education practice. Such duties will be included in teachers' pay and conditions only if the review body says, "We recognise that teachers' hours could include such necessary supervision, and we shall therefore make such a recommendation to the Secretary of State."
There have been two main parental worries in the past decade. The first fear is of classroom disruption by teachers taking industrial action. That is now over. The Bill will seal peace among teachers, education authorities and the Government. The second fear is of classroom disruption by rowdy and anti-social pupils, which is a much more difficult problem with which to deal. The


chances of dealing with it successfully are mightily improved if the teaching profession works with the community, the Government and interested parties.
Public education is a central civic function. To promote within the local authority sector a sensible balance between good school management and a fair allocation of resources is a central task of Government. The pay review body will ensure that there is a fair allocation of resources, which inevitably includes fair and reasonable salaries for teachers. I wish the Bill well. It will bring industrial peace throughout the education service.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The first point we need to remember as we debate the Bill is that the Conservative party has been in power for 12 years. It has not suddenly been thrust into office, and it did not suddenly find that all these problems were building up because of a previous Administration. During the past decade or so, Conservative Administrations have failed to deal with education problems.

Dr. Hampson: I hesitate to intervene. Having been a Member for so long, I remember when Shirley Williams, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, talked about national curricula, but nothing was done. Instead, budgets were cut more heavily in 1976 under a Labour Government than at any other time since the war. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that there is a long lead time in education. Translating plans into legislation, instituting systems in schools and training teachers probably takes 15 years. If anyone has responsibility, it is the Labour Government for the decisions they did not take and for the rotten decisions they did take.

Mr. Griffiths: I can hardly thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. At that time, I was a teacher. Education problems are far greater now, after 12 years of Conservative rule. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to come with me to any school, in my constituency or his, to ask teachers who have experienced education over that period what they think. The hon. Gentleman will be surprised at the answer, because it will not agree with his comments.
At the end of 12 years of Conservative government, we have chaos in the education system. Although some welcomed some aspects of the Government's reforms—for example, the national curriculum—teachers have been wringing their hands in despair at the way in which they are expected to carry them out and because of difficulties in terms of the number of subjects allocated and the testing originally envisaged. Teachers feel desperate when they consider how to ensure that the children in their charge are properly educated and to meet the demands of the testing which the Government introduced.
No wonder Her Majesty's inspectorate and the interim advisory committee give clear warnings about teachers' pay and conditions. The interim advisory committee's last report stated:
We are in no doubt at all that teacher morale is lower than in our first two years".
The senior chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate said:
too many teachers feel that their profession and its work are misjudged and seriously undervalued".

No hon. Member can say that the responsibility lies with decisions made in the mid-1970s. It lies with decisions made during the past decade. The difficulty in facing up to that problem led us to this debate.
During the latter part of the 1980s, teachers' pay lagged behind that of comparable groups. In October 1987, the starting salary of a graduate teacher was £10,330; today, it is £9,990. A teacher on incentive allowance B in October 1987 had a salary worth £17,390; today, it is worth £16,660. The value of a teacher's salary has decreased.
The review of the Government's education record by the infamous Carlton club's political committee stated:
To put matters into perspective, teachers' salaries are:—

50 per cent. less than those of Medical Practitioners.
75 per cent. less than Accountants.
80 per cent. less than Civil Engineers.
It is a truism to state that a country only gets those professionals it is prepared to pay for. On the salaries now being paid to teachers it is, frankly, a wonder (and a huge testimony to their sense of vocation) that so many dedicated men and women remain in the profession.
That was the view of the people at the heart of the Conservative party, not of Labour local authorities or of those of the Labour Front Bench. If the Government cannot face up to that criticism, they cannot face up to any criticism.
The Carlton club's political committee stated:
the Government should also recognise that it will win the respect of the public at large if it errs a little on the side of generosity in rewarding 'the better teacher'.
The political committee stated that there was a need for a
thorough independent review of teachers' pay
with a
significant upgrading of teachers' pay".
All the evidence from the Opposition and even from the heart of the Tory party shows the need to pay teachers a decent wage so that they feel that the fine words lately showered on them mean something.
At the beginning of the debate, parents' commitment to the state education system was questioned. The Secretary of State said that anyone who read the Daily Mirror was a moron. I am sure that they are the words that the record will show tomorrow.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that they were the words, which were somewhat misguided on my part. I sought to comment on the lack of wisdom of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in choosing that newspaper as a source for his comments, but it was more a comment on the newspaper and on the user of the quotation than on the readers.

Mr. Griffiths: It was a fit of pique, anger and misjudgment by the Secretary of State to describe readers of the Daily Mirror as morons. I understand his desire to put the record straight. However, it seemed that, during the interview given to Woman, the Secretary of State was saying that, because of the difficulties faced by state schools, he did not know of any parents who wanted to send their children there, or that, at least, if they had the money they would desert wholesale to the private sector.
If the Secretary of State is prepared to listen, I can assure him that the majority of parents in my constituency—and, I am sure, that of almost every hon. Member—are committed to the state education system and want their children to go to schools that are not too far away and where they can be assured that teachers are well-paid, fully committed and happy and have high morale, so that they


can contribute to the education of their children, who in their turn will contribute to the economic and social well being of the country.
I mentioned the four comprehensive schools in my constituency such as Brynteg and Bryntirion in Bridgend and Cynffig comprehensive in Kenfig Hill and Porthcawl comprehensive in Porthcawl. Those comprehensive schools have a record of academic achievement and extra-curricular activities such as concerts and musical shows. I am sure that, if the Secretary of State were able to visit a state school, he would be welcome and would applaud those schools for their standards, for the commitment of the parents and for the fact that they are happy for their children to go there. Not all parents are satisfied, because clearly, all parents want schools to do better for their children, hut, nevertheless, the majority are committed to and support schools such as those in my constituency.
One of the problems with the Bill is that of resources and the directions that the Secretary of State might want to apply to the independent review body. It was not clear either from what the Secretary of State said or from some of the exchanges whether the review body for teachers would operate in exactly the same way as those for dentists or doctors. If he were to make it clear that the ground rules would be exactly the same, the misgivings of some teachers' unions could be overcome.
It is a pity that, before introducing the Bill, the Secretary of State did not consult teachers' organisations and the local authorities, which are the employers. If he had done so, it might have been possible to come up with a pay review body which, in principle, had the assent of all parties involved. As the Secretary of State knows, the Labour party is, in principle, in favour of independent review bodies. It has advocated them in the past, and I am sure that if, on this occasion, wide consultation had been carried out, everyone would have been happy to support the Bill. It is the lack of clarity about the Secretary of State's intentions that gives us cause for concern.
The Secretary of State should also bear it in mind on the question of resources that local authorities all too often fail in their task of providing education, either because they do not receive sufficient funding from the Government or because they deliberately choose to use the funding for purposes other than those intended by the Government.
I use the example of nursery education. The 20 leading authorities in the provision of nursery education are Labour-controlled and the 20 worst are largely led by Conservatives. Let us take the specific example of the county of Gwent, where there will shortly be a by-election. That county provides 60 per cent. of its three and four-year-olds with nursery opportunities. In the neighbouring county of Hereford and Worcester, the figure is about 20 per cent., and in Gloucestershire, it is about 30 per cent. What a contrast between a Labour authority and two Conservative authorities.
It is on the question of nursery education that the famous Carlton club report accuses the Government of supplying inaccurate information in Conservative party literature and of not respecting its great importance.
When the Government deal with the pay review body, I hope that they will be prepared to consider the questions which have been raised about the Secretary of State's

powers and, even, at this stage, to call in all the unions and the local education authorities to see if there can be general agreement and some changes to the Bill.

Mr. Michael Irvine: I followed the remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) with interest but I am still not clear whether he supports the independent pay review body outlined in the Bill.
The most revealing speech from the Opposition was perhaps that made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). He was in no doubt that he opposed the concept of such a body. He said—I took a careful note—that he really did oppose the Bill. He paused for thought and then said that he hoped that his party did too; the Bill needed opposing. His touching and rather plaintive expression of hope that the Labour party would oppose the Bill clearly showed that he—like the majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends—had been left in the dark by the contortions, the uncertainties and the evasions of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]
I am not responsible for where he is now. He is no doubt soothing himself after the ordeal that he experienced this afternoon. For the record, it was 25 minutes—I was watching the clock carefully—before he even attempted to deal with the Bill. We had 25 minutes of irrelevant preamble, followed by 15 tentative and uncertain minutes during which he gingerly circled the Bill, never coming properly to terms with it. His embarrassment was plain to see.

Dr. Hampson: It was even worse. It became evident that, because he thought that the Association of University Teachers was in favour of a professional review body, he endorsed it,but because the National Union of Teachers was against one for schoolteachers, he was against it.

Mr. Irvine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has identified with precision one of the appalling contortions in which the hon. Member for Blackburn found himself. I want now to move on from that to the reasons for the difficulties that lay behind his speech.
The embarrassment of the hon. Member for Blackburn almost certainly stemmed from the fact that within hours of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State making his announcement on 17 April, five out of six of the main teaching unions had come out in support of the review body; the exception was the National Union of Teachers. That put the hon. Gentleman fairly and squarely on the spot. Despite the fact that the other teaching unions favoured the concept of an independent pay review body and despite the fact that a majority of members of the National Union of Teachers probably favoured the idea, a powerful element in the NUT leadership is set on a return either to Burnham or to something closely related to it. The hon. Member for Blackburn dares not affront that powerful element—hence his evasions, contortions and uncertainties.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that in one excellently run primary school in my constituency, 100 per cent. of teachers were in the NUT? When there was last a strike, all except two came out of the NUT. Teachers do not want the right to strike,


that the hon. Member for Hillsborough apparently wants. They want the right to have a professional body to decide their fate.

Mr. Irvine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my point.
We have had enough of the difficulties, uncertainties and miseries of the hon. Member for Blackburn. I will get on to a more positive aspect of the Bill. The status of their profession is naturally of particular concern to the vast majority of teachers. They recognise the damage that was done to the good name of their profession by the breakdown of Burnham and by the industrial disruption undertaken by a minority of teachers in the mid-1980s. The vast majority of teachers are rightly determined to re-establish their status and to emphasise their professionalism. The Bill is a significant step towards them doing so.
It is true that an independent pay review body is one thing and that obtaining from the Government the full implementation of that body's recommendations is another. However, teachers who are cynical or distrustful should remember that the recommendations of their independent pay review body will inevitably carry a great deal of clout and that that clout will be exercised in a highly sensitive and political area on which both main parties have laid great store. It will not be easy for a Government, whatever their political hue, to ride roughshod over the independent pay review body's recommendations.
I hope that, in determining the appropriate pay levels for teachers, the new pay review body will recognise the importance not merely of recruiting and retaining sufficient teachers, but of recruiting and retaining teachers of quality. The problem is not just making the numbers fit, but raising the quality level. That point was made effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) when the House debated the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill in November. I was not present in the Chamber to hear the speech, but I read it in Hansard and I thought that it was excellent.
The need for teachers of quality is especially great nowadays. In a more competitive world, the benefits and skills that children can gain from good teaching are even more at a premium and the task facing teachers is in many ways more daunting than it used to be. There are more behaviour problems with which to deal, and there are far more children from broken homes and unsettled backgrounds. There is generally less respect for authority. All too often, there is not enough interest from parents, and there is a reduced level of attentiveness and application from children who are brought up to expect instant and effortless entertainment from television, videos and the like.
All that puts unprecedented pressure on teachers and makes it that much more important for teachers of quality to be recruited and retained. I very much agreed with what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) said about the importance of ensuring that the pay of the experienced classroom teacher is given special attention.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) referred to local management of schools as a burden. In my constituency, local management of schools, far from being a burden, is improving morale among teachers. I

know many teachers who had reservations about local management of schools and who now strongly support it. I also know some teachers who opposed it outright and who have now swung round to being in favour of it.
Great credit is due to the Suffolk education authority for the local management of schools formula that it devised and for the effort it put into training and preparing teachers for it. That effort has paid rich dividends. Local management of schools is working well in Suffolk. It has definitely played its part in boosting morale among teachers and school governors.
After going through an intensely difficult period, the teaching profession is now on the way to recovering its morale and self-confidence. This excellent Bill, in giving teachers their own pay review body and emphasising their professional status, will powerfully reinforce the welcome and continuing improvement in the status of the profession.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: A succession of Conservative Members have repeated that they are unclear about the Labour party's position. Perhaps they have not read the Order Paper, where we set out with perfect clarity the grounds on which we oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. The reasoned amendment refers to the "unacceptable powers" that the Bill gives the Secretary of State and to the lack of any proposals
to raise teachers' professionalism by the establishment of a General Teachers Council.
Alternatively, Conservative Members may have developed a blind spot. After 12 years, Conservative Members reject any deviation from counter-productive diktat. In 12 years in government, Conservative Members have lost the habit of listening, not least to what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) says. They have turned a blind eye to the effects of their actions over those 12 years. That is what our debate is about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was entirely correct in listing the series of assaults that successive Conservative Administrations have inflicted on the material and spiritual well-being of the teaching profession. There has been a steady decline in teachers' pay, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn referred, and teachers have been affected by so-called "innovation fatigue". There has been too much innovation, introduced too quickly and always "within current resources". That is the usual incantation. There have been constant challenges to teachers' professionalism and the cumulative effects of drowning in a sea of paper.
A university report, to be published later this year shows that secondary teachers spend an average of 63 hours a week on school work—most of it outside the classroom. They spend only one third of their time on teaching, and have less than 20 minutes a day for breaks and lunch. Teachers' conscientiousness, rather than their salary, status or prescribed working hours, is the critical factor in the excessive and unhealthy amount of time that they devote to their work.
Teachers do all that in slum conditions. My own local authority, Knowsley, can afford only £2·5 million for repair and maintenance work on its schools, although, according to a professional assessment, £8·5 million is needed to bring the school buildings up to scratch. That figure can be multiplied across all the local authorities in the land. That is in stark contrast to the bankrolling of the


city technology colleges and the grant-maintained schools, which are the darlings of the Government. It is all stick and no carrot. What a way to handle an intelligent and spohisticated profession.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman referred to the grant-maintained schools as the darlings of the Government. Will he confirm that they are also the darlings of parents, and that the number of pupils applying for entry to them has increased substantially in the past two or three years?

Mr. O'Hara: The statistical evidence shows that there has been a pathetic response to the invitation to opt out. We have the evidence of a school in my own local authority area. When opting out was suggested, there was a 94·7 per cent. vote against, on a turnout of 75 per cent. That represents a pretty conclusive rejection of the notion.
Conservative Member's insensitivity was impressively demonstrated by their supercilious dismissal of the question why they do not patronise the state education system—except, that is, in their demeanour towards it.
During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, the hon. Member for Buckingharn (Mr. Walden) made a revealing intervention, in which he defended the abandonment of the state sector by Ministers and Conservative Members on the grounds of the egalitarianism for which that sector stands. I hope that the Prime Minister, who advocates the classless society, was not listening at that point.
"Egalitarianism" is an interesting word. It refers both to equality of opportunity and to equity of provision—to "la carriere ouverte aux talents" and to positive discrimination in favour of those in greatest need. If that is not what a classless society means, I do not know what is. On both counts—opportunity and equity—egalitarianism will not do for Conservative Members. They do not want opportunity—except for their own children—and they do not like to allocate resources to the majority who patronise state schools.
That mean thread of dogma runs through so much that the Government have done since 1979. In the early days, the assisted places scheme provided a "ladder out of the state system"—as eloquent an admission as one could get that the state system was second class, was not good enough, was something from which to escape.
The dynamic of the city technology colleges was that success for the minority could be provided only at the expense of the majority. Entry to CTCs must be selective, and they are obscenely stuffed with funding. Grant-maintained schools provide a similar example of bribery and bankrolling. Only this week, grant-maintained schools have been given the mechanism to become selective, if they wish, as soon as possible.
What about the national curriculum? As hon. Members have said, it was on its way. It was an open door, but by running a bulldozer against that open door, the Government did untold damage. They almost ruined a good idea by their insensitive imposition of the national curriculum—although not in the private schools to which so many Conservative Members send their children.
All that was done, and for what?
The Government will be judged in part on its perceived achievements and shortcomings in this crucial area"—
education, that is.
It must be recognised that there is mounting concern that Conservative reforms have yet to produce results"—

after 12 years. Hon. Members will recognise my quotation, which comes from the Carlton club political committee report. There is some good stuff in that report. Apparently, we are bottom of the league table of nursery provision, our school governors have excessive powers and we have failed to curb the Church school sector. It is just as well that there are not many votes left for the Conservative party to lose in Knowsley, South, because—who knows—people there may read the meanderings of the Carlton club political committee in bed.
Is it any wonder that the teaching profession feels demoralised or that the Government feel that they must make some concession to those who must be the prime agents in retrieving this desparate situation? Is it any wonder that, after 12 years of iron rations, the demoralised teaching profession is prepared to accept half a cake—albeit with caution, as suggested in the quotation from the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred, in which that body expressed its regret at the haste with which the Bill has been introduced.
Even this much is offered grudgingly. The Secretary of State reserves intolerable powers of direction in this toothless tiger of a Bill. For the benefit of Conservative Members, I should say, "Watch my lips." This is the point of our opposition to the Bill. If the Bill is not toothless, it will be because it has a set of dentures designed by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will assure us that he will not hand-pick the members of the body, and that he will ensure full and fair representation of all the interests affected by the review body.
Why does not the Secretary of State go further and consider allowing the teaching profession its own professional body, as befits its professional importance? Who was it who said:
increasing the status of the teaching profession through the endorsement of a Royal College of Teaching is a concept strongly favoured by all advisers"?
It was the Carlton club group again. Short of a royal college, which the Labour party would prefer, I support the granting to the teaching profession of a review body. I cannot, however, support the Bill, because of the unacceptable powers of direction that it gives to the Secretary of State. According to the explanatory and financial memorandum, the Bill
empowers the Secretary of State, where, following a report from the review body and having consulted associations of local education authorities and others, he decides to make fresh provision as regards the statutory conditions of employment of school teachers, to do so by an order, subject in specified circumstances to the negative resolution procedure".
That is the nub of the matter.
I referred earlier to a fundamental difference of ideology between the Labour and Conservative parties in their attitudes towards egalitarianism. There is another fundamental difference. I refer to my party's concern for good industrial relations, for the exercise of professional responsibility—for good psychology, perhaps. In the context of this Bill, it is appropriate to consider what teachers might think. Any decent teacher will tell one of the importance of giving his pupils a sense of being valued and involved in the enterprise of learning. So it is with colleagues in a common enterprise. What enterprise could


be more important for the Government, for the country and for those who devote their lives and careers to it than the education of the nation's children?
Before Conservative Members leap up to present a picture of a Labour Government and the teaching profession linked arm in arm, like the Kop choir singing "You'll Never Walk Alone", I hasten to say that that would be a travesty of the truth. We in Liverpool have two football teams. The other is Everton, whose motto is "Nil Satis Nisi Optimum"—"Nothing will do but the best". For the next Labour Government, only the best will do for education. The best cannot be achieved without the full co-operation of a teaching force with a sense of professional respect and responsibility. The Bill is irredeemably flawed in its capacity to provide that essential ingredient for success in our education system throughout the 1990s.

9 pm

Dr. Keith Hampson: I could make many comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), but I want to be brief. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill is flawed. In fact, the flawed point in the Opposition's case is the one to which he referred. The Opposition say that they would not mind having a review body but that the one proposed is inappropriate because of the built-in responsibility of the Secretary of State. In the Standing Committee that considered the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said:
We accept in principle that the Secretary of State should have the power to propose the final settlement in any pay award."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 24 January 1991; c. 208.]
That situation cannot be avoided.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not read the report of the Standing Committee that considered the Education Reform Bill of 1988. If he had done so, he would realise how flawed is his argument against the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). Throughout the proceedings of the Standing Committee to which I have just referred, Ministers denied what was really the intention behind the legislation. Our point is that the Government should be honest and straightforward. That is what the hon. Gentleman does not like.

Dr. Hampson: The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to reply for the Opposition. Let me draw her attention to the Official Report of 17 April, in which she will find these words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State:
As the Government face the fare and pay the bill, the Government have to have that power in the last resort"—[Official Report, 17 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 442.]
I thought that we had made that obvious throughout the proceedings.
What we have seen tonight is the total embarrassment—I hesitate to use the word "hypocrisy"—of Labour Members, who know that the course on which the Government are embarked is correct. The Government have changed course, and some of us are delighted about that. Surely Labour Members ought to be equally

delighted. Why are they not? They think that the AUT is in favour of a professional pay body. I am not sure that it is.
We all know Labour Members' connections with the NUT. The Labour party and the National Union of Teachers have been hand in glove for decades. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) is paid by the NUT. She will be slightly embarrassed—[interruption.] If the hon. Lady allows me to continue, she will realise that it is not necessary to interrupt. I am not attacking her; I am merely pointing out that no doubt she is in a dilemma because she is the paid representative of the NUT and has a declared interest in the Royal College of Nursing. It seems to me that she has split loyalties.
Opposition Members have declared themselves as being in favour of the principle of the Bill but have scrabbled around for a way to oppose the precise nature of the Government's proposition. It is a case of wishy-washy dithering. I have been a member of the Carlton club for well over 20 years. By citing the Carlton club as the equivalent of a Government manifesto or a statement of Government policy, Opposition Members are scraping the bottom of the barrel. I was not even a member of the Carlton club group that has been referred to. Immodest as I am, I should not put much store by a situation in which I had not even been asked whether I should like to turn up. I have not even seen the document.
There are hardly any Opposition Members present at the moment, but I should like some of those who referred to the famous Carlton club paper to swear that they have read it. We all know what happens. These days, Labour spokesmen are supplied with a research brief. They have all been referred to the best bits of the Carlton club paper to quote.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Hampson: I shall not give way. I can see that the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the paper.

Mr. Griffiths: And I have read it.

Dr. Hampson: I cannot believe that all those who have spoken from the Opposition Benches this evening had a copy, because——

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Hampson: I told the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) that I would not give way. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) wishes to speak, I shall bring my remarks to an end in about five minutes.
I endorse the part of the paper that states that we must reward the better teacher. Most of us accept that teaching is fundamental to the entire learning process, but who resists that? The answer is the National Union of Teachers. It has never wanted pay differentials, and accordingly the Labour party has resisted the idea, as always. Labour-controlled councils such as Leeds have not accepted the technical and vocational education initiative. That is an example of another major reform on which the Labour party has turned its back.
The Labour party considered the national curriculum. A former Labour Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, thought that it was essential if standards of education were to be raised. None the less, the Labour party turned its back on the concept. Every major


education reform has been instinctively rejected by the Labour party because of its relationship with the teaching unions.
The Labour party is grudgingly accepting the national curriculum nowadays, but it talks about upheaval and turbulence in schools. I say to the teachers that there would be a damned sight less turbulence in schools if we had acted earlier during the Labour Administration and dealt with the examination system, a national curriculum and all the other education reforms with which the Government are having to deal.
There is no point in Opposition Members saying that we are faced with the inheritance of the past decade. They know as well as I do that by the time we have educated sixth formers in mathematics and they have graduated, passed through teacher training and become teachers, and a framework for a national curriculum has been formulated, a lead time of about 15 years will have been spent.
The Opposition must bear responsibility for their dithering, their lack of decision making and the lack of funding for the education service when they were in government. They are responsible for what took place a decade or a decade and a half ago. The results with which we are faced are the results of their shortcomings. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be responsible for the standards of the education system in a decade or a decade and a halls time. I am sure that the standards will be much higher than those of today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) stressed the need for good school management. Leadership is important if a school is to work, and that reflects on the quality of the headmaster. I trust that we shall not turn headmasters into managers. We must consider imaginatively how part-time accountants and others can be introduced to schools to examine financial and management systems rather than to impose such systems on the headmaster.
I entirely endorse the arguments advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for introducing a pay review body. There is a case, however, for examining the pay of those who are engaged in higher education. We must have a body that embodies teachers that are involved in further and higher education so that we can have sensible relativities. Schoolteachers have done relatively well compared with teachers in higher education.
I know that it is easy to score points and we all might have wished teachers to have higher pay, but the salaries of schoolteachers have increased five times as quickly under Conservative Governments as under the Labour Government. I will not give the reasons for that, but that is what has happened. Although we might have preferred a further advance, salaries have risen by 30 per cent. in real terms while Labour could not raise them by more than 6 per cent.
We must also consider what has happened to people in higher education. When we consider morale in higher education and the talk of disruption, we should accord to them the professional status which in this Bill we are according to schoolteachers. The record of those in higher education in terms of the number of students passing through the system, the improved productivity and improved student-staff ratios are yardsticks that deserve recognition.
We have one of the tightest degree programmes of any western European higher education system and we are

now arguing that degree courses should last two years. We have a very cost-effective higher education system, and its reputation hangs on the quality of the people teaching in it. They deserve the same status that we are seeking to accord to schoolteachers.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: The Secretary of State for Education and Science and several Conservative Members have mouthed phrases about having respect for teachers. However, it seems that that respect does not extend to reinstating teachers' negotiating rights. Nor does it extend to teachers at Culloden school in my constituency, who were witch-hunted by The Mail on Sunday. The Secretary of State joined that witch hunt by failing even to adhere to his Department's requirement that a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate should be sent to the governors, staff and the local education authority at least two weeks before it was made public. The report was leaked to The Mail on Sunday two days before and sent to the governors on the same day that it was sent to the rest of the press. Culloden school is in an area where 68 per cent. of the people are unemployed. Harassing its teachers was not a show of respect, and it certainly will not help to bring about improvements in the school.
Many teachers have supported the idea of a review body as a lesser evil. They thought that they would have to fight for increases in salary school by school. They did not realise that the review body would be loaded with extra powers for the Secretary of State to give directions on pay and conditions of employment.
Several Conservative Members said that good teachers should be rewarded. All teachers should be good teachers, or they should not be teaching. The Government believe that it is cheaper to reward a small group than to give a decent salary to the majority of teachers.
On Saturday, there was a knock on my door and a young lady came to collect my census form. She told me that I must put it in an envelope because she knew me; we used to teach together. She was using her evenings and weekends to collect census forms because she could not afford to pay her mortgage. That is a true reflection of teachers' conditions. That is why so many teachers are taking early retirement and why teachers who can find jobs in other areas are voting with their feet. That is why students will not enter teaching if they have a choice.
If the shortage of teachers worsens and the situation becomes chronic, craven researchers like Bennett will produce evidence to show that children learn better in large classes; but not of course in independent schools, just in schools for working-class—the majority—children.
The Secretary of State showed his ignorance about modern methods of education when he referred to teachers being judged by their performance in front of the class. He was casting his mind back to his own school days and the days of chalk and talk. Those days have long passed. Teachers no longer teach that way. In this modern world, it is not suitable for children who can see the whole world opening up before them on television to be taught by old-fashioned methods.
I might surprise the Secretary of State by telling him that, in my years as a teacher, I was rather conservative in my approach to teaching methods. I used to teach phonics. I annoyed many head teachers by putting an ABC on the wall, and teaching children the sounds and names of


letters. I believe in teaching tables. The ready reckoners of the days when people learned tables were not so different from the pocket calculators of today. People still need their tables. I deplore the fact that children are no longer taught poetry by heart. I have spoken to many 80-year-olds who recited with joy verses that they had learnt when they were children.
I am not a faddist. Too many fashions have come and gone. Too many times I have seen the baby thrown out with the bath water. But the Secretary of State is a faddist. He wants to hark back to the phonic method only, and the graded reading system which parents regard as a ladder. They find out what book the child next door is on, and harass their child if she or he is not on the same book. That does not produce good results; it just produces nervous children. The Secretary of State wants a system akin to the monitor system for trained teachers. He really wants payment by results, too. He is harking back to a previous age.
The opposite is needed in this fast-changing world. We need to teach children flexibility. They need to learn to use reference books to find out how to do things. They are not open vessels into which we can pour information for them to regurgitate in tests.
The seven-plus test will do much more harm than good. Teachers will have less time to spend in teaching, and far more administration which is overburdening them already. Although a small percentage of children who would do well will get pleasure and advancement from it, the majority of children will lose their confidence. The main thing that a teacher teaches is self-confidence and improving the self-image. If children are happy and confident, one can teach them. If one introduces systems such as a public examination at seven, one will destroy the self-confidence of vast numbers of children, as the 11-plus did. I taught such children. It took years to restore their self-image and to enable them to learn properly again.
The other day I received a letter from a parent who said, "I do not want my child to take a public examination. The head teacher tells me that, if I send him to school, he has to take it, and if I keep him away I am breaking the law. Where is my choice?" That is a good question which I put to the Minister of State: where is the parental choice? None of those regulations applies to independent schools. The significance of that is not lost on parents. If it is good for state schools, why is it not good for independent schools?
I must conclude because, although I have sat here for six hours, I have only a few minutes to talk. The Secretary of State has been talking to the press about independent schools and about how everyone who can afford it would send their children to them. What they are paying for is small classes. That is what we want for all children. They also pay for social advancement—the contacts they make, the old school tie network—that puts so many nitwits into management that it has been destroying our industry. That is something else that they are paying for.
When I was training, the Butler Act had just come into effect. Many of the good provisions of that Act were never put into practice. I hope that many of the bad provisions of this Government's regulations, including this Bill, will not come into effect because we shall have a rapid change of Government.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I guess that it is almost unique in parliamentary history to have two opportunities in the same parliamentary year to debate broadly the same issues, with slightly different Bills but very much the same themes. The first of those debates will be remembered for the fact that during it there was the leadership election for the Conservative party. I suspect that it offered a counter-attraction. When I read the Official Report of the Second Reading debate I realised that there were one or two moments when the Benches on the other side of the House were virtually empty.
I suspect that on this occasion, the debate will not be remembered for the election of the new leader of the Conservative party, because obviously that has not taken place today. It is much more likely to be remembered for the Secretary of State's gaff when he commented on a few million of his fellow citizens who read one daily newspaper. That most unfortunate comment leads us to question his ability to behave rationally in certain circumstances.
Let us now see whether we can come to some point of consensus or unanimity across the House. Virtually all hon. Members have wanted to sing the praises of teachers and to talk about their professionalism. Opposition Members welcome that consensus. We recognise that the teachers have enabled the changes in our education system to be made. Without teachers, there would be no delivery of the national curriculum, no seven-plus tests and no successful introduction of the GCSEs. Teachers have done much of that with an increased work load and often in difficult circumstances. It is right that the House should put on record its support for teachers and their professionalism and recognise the job that they have done in the past few years.
In his graphic speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) itemised the increased work load faced by teachers, their patience and their commitment to their pupils. That is something that we all recognise. Incidentally, we missed my hon. Friend's presence on the Standing Committee that considered the first Bill. Indeed, there are those who have spread the rumour that the only reason for the introduction of this No. 2 Bill is that it will give my hon. Friend the opportunity to speak in the Standing Committee that considers it. I am sure that he will take advantage of that opportunity on a number of occasions and speak with great enthusiasm.
Once again, my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough brought to our debate his ability to understand the problems of the classroom, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) who made the good point that many teachers work in circumstances that are far from convenient or conducive to good quality education. She referred, for example, to crumbling schools. It is a scandal that about £4,000 million-worth of repairs and new build necessary are necessary to bring the quality of our schools up to standard. [Interruption.] I missed what the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, but I am probably fortunate in that respect.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I said that a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer put an embargo on school


building because he had to kow-tow to the International Monetary Fund. That led to a backlog in school building and school repairs.

Mr. Fatchett: I am rather sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady, because, yet again, her point is incorrect. If she looks at the record and compares the statistics, she will see that Labour's record on school building was considerably better than that of this Government. I fear that the hon. Lady never recognises good facts, but always knows good prejudice and peddles it.
We have seen a number of prejudices in the debate. The hon. Members for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) talked about the quality of education being subverted by what they called "progressive teaching methods". That is now the theme of the Secretary of State. He has discovered what he too calls "progressive methods" and accuses those responsible for progressive methods of reducing the overall quality of education. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), I thought that it might be interesting to discover the basis on which the Secretary of State was making those assertions.
The hon. Members for Wolverhampton, North-East and for Norwich, North may well have more detailed experience, but the Secretary of State talks about the quality and direction of teacher education in a way that leads one to assume that he had some practical experience and had visited teacher training colleges throughout the country. We can all remember his comments about teacher training colleges. It was clear that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not paid such visits, other DES Ministers had done so. It seemed clear that the combined expertise of the DES at ministerial level resulted from a number of visits to teacher training colleges to find exactly what happens in them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East tabled a question, which was answered this afternoon, asking the Secretary of State to list the colleges of teacher education and training and the university and polytechnic departments of education that had been visited by all DES Ministers in the past six months. I stress that the question did not refer only to the Secretary of State. When I hold up the answer, the House can see that it is not a long list. It lists four Ministers and between them——

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Five.

Mr. Fatchett: I do them an injustice—there is a growing organisation. Between them, they have been to two colleges of education: the college of Ripon and St. John in York; and the Roehampton institute. Those two institutions have a lot to worry about, as they give grounds for many of the prejudices peddled from the Conservative side of the Chamber.
We have also heard about the argument for increased teacher professionalism. We would certainly support that. The hon. Member for Norwich, North argued that case strongly, as did the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). I welcomed her speech. It was almost a history lesson, because she kept talking about her party. I was not quite sure whether there was still a political party or whether she was talking about a social event in Greenwich at the weekend. Nevertheless, she was able to use the royal "we" with great skill on behalf of her two colleagues. I assume that there are still two.
I must confess that I went to Plymouth the other week to take a passing interest in the local election there. I noticed that the Social Democratic party there calls itself the Social Democrats of Plymouth so that it can retain the initials. It has maintained the initials, but I am not sure whether it has maintained the faith and the consensus.
Like virtually all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, the hon. Member for Greenwich said that she was in favour of professionalism for teachers, and I agree with her. In that context, it would be useful if the Government were prepared to support the notion of a general teaching council, which we have suggested on previous occasions. We think that that would be a good instrument to improve teacher professionalism, to give the profession a sense of purpose and to improve teachers' self-confidence. The Government have made a number of comments tonight about enhancing professionalism and I hope that they will accept the notion of introducing such a council.

Dr. Hampson: What will it do?

Mr. Fatchett: I am always happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary interventions. We enjoyed one ealier this afternoon. The general teaching council would set standards of teacher education and in-service training; it would provide the professionalism that is known in other professions, such as medicine and law, which is a crucial and important task, and, it will give teachers the sense of self-confidence and purpose——

Dr. Hampson: What about discipline?

Mr. Fatchett: —and the sense of discipline that is lacking.
Another aspect of professionalism mentioned by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East was the introduction of teacher appraisal, which she favoured. She wanted a national scheme for teacher appraisal. She must talk to the Secretary of State. There is no reason why she cannot do that.

Mr. David Davis (Boothferry): He might do a runner.

Mr. Fatchett: No, he will not, and he certainly will not do a runner to visit schools and colleges. The Secretary of State will be there and the hon. Lady should pick up the telephone, ring the Department of Education and Science, and have a word with him. Then she will find out that he gave only a quarter of the amount recommended by the independent body to the national appraisal scheme for teachers. If the Secretary of State had been serious about teacher professionalism he would have made the resources available so that the job could be done properly.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said that the House had reason to criticise Ministers
for the appalling way in which the Government had treated the House".
He went on to use the word "deceit" about the Government's intentions and referred to the considerable delay between the date that the first Bill came out of Standing Committee to the date that the statement was made on 17 April.
We know that there is not a great deal of consistency between what was said on 27 November and what has been said this evening. It is interesting that, on the previous occasion, eight Conservative Back Benchers spoke. Each and every one of them spoke, with great enthusiasm, in favour of the first Bill, as did the Secretary of State.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: So did you.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State has already made one big gaff this evening; it is useful for him to keep quiet on occasion. I point out to him that we voted on a reasoned amendment in the previous debate.
Eight Conservative Back Benchers spoke in favour of the earlier Bill with great enthusiasm. It is interesting to note that not one has spoken in tonight's debate.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: They were gagged.

Mr. Fatchett: They were not gagged but embarrassed. Seven of them have not even been in the Chamber. The Secretary of State has no need to check. Unlike him, I do my homework, and I can tell him that there were eight speakers—seven of whom were not in the Chamber tonight—and each supported collective bargaining for teachers and opt-out for schools in individual local education authorities.
It is a distinguished list: the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), and the two whose contributions I enjoy the most, the hon. Members for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—the Nervo and Knox of education debates. The hon. Member for Dartford said in the previous debate that he had advocated the Bill during his five years as a Minister in the Department of Education and Science. He was so enthusiastic about the first Bill that he felt that all his previous arguments and persuasion of Ministers has at last worked. Sadly, he lost his job in the process.
The Secretary of State is now reading through the report of the proceedings of the debate.

Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the debate, perhaps he will help me. I am looking for the reasoned amendment to see whether Labour Members gave their views on a review body. He has spoken for a quarter of an hour without mentioning those words, although they are the subject of the debate.

Mr. Fatchett: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the reasoned amendment, he will see what it says. It was not only the view of the Labour party, but that of the then Secretary of State. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) may be interested in this point. I asked the Secretary of State whether the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, felt that the teachers should have a pay review body. He will find this at column 749. The Secretary of State's response is clear enough. He said:
However, I do not believe that we shall embark on a fresh review of pay arrangements, when the Bill"—
that is, the first Bill—
contains excellent arrangements that should be enacted and put into force."—[Official Report, 27 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 749.]

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am glad to see that I did not answer the question. The time has now come for him to answer the question. Is the Labour party in favour of a review body?

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State's tactic when he is asked a question is to reply with a question. That is what

he did earlier. No one can accuse the Secretary of State of consistency—[Interruption.] I shall deal with all the points; we have enough time.
In the first debate, we heard much right-wing ideology in favour of individual local education authorities opting out of central pay bargaining. That was seen as the answer to teacher shortages and the lack of motivation. Speaker after speaker on Second Reading and in Committee said that opt-out in individual local authorities was the answer to the problems of teacher shortages and pay. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who is not with us at the moment, was very enthusiastic about it in relation to clauses 8 and 9. He said that that was the key to greater flexibility and to greater incentive for individual teachers. Those were the arguments that the hon. Gentleman voted for on the previous occasion. We were told that they were important.
Let me say, as I like consensus to be maintained, that I am delighted that the arguments that my hon. Friends and I used in Committee against clauses 8 and 9 and opting out have been listened to and that the Government have dropped that right-wing nonsense from the Bill. I hope that we never again hear of the idea of individual local education authorities being able to opt out of the national pay structure for teachers. That ideology has been buried.
As for this Bill, and our reasoned amendments, our point is that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State extensive powers of direction and detail. He argued on previous occasions that the teachers' organisations favour a pay review body, but he was less than fair to them. He knows that the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has said that, while it may favour the principle of a pay review body, it is less than happy with the powers that are being given to the Secretary of State. We were told by the Secretary of State that he would not interfere, that powers of direction had to be included in the Bill but that they are not important.
The Secretary of State then relied on an argument that I believe is the thinnest argument of all: that the powers have to be there because this is a statutory body but that they will not be used in any malicious or evil way "because you can trust me and I am a decent bloke." I have heard some weak arguments in the Chamber but that is one of the weakest I have ever heard. We may accept that this Secretary of State is a decent bloke, but we should like those powers to be substantially reduced.
What did the Secretary of State have to offer teachers? He offered them no additional money or resources but promised that the pay review body—I noted his words—could take account of the standard spending assessments for the level of investment in education. If account had been taken of the SSAs in 1989 and 1990, they would have led to a cut of £1·5 billion in education expenditure. That is what would have happened if individual local authorities had operated the Government's imposed, centralised target. Are teachers being offered a cut in resources? Teachers will not find such a offer attractive. Although Conservative Members may believe that the notion of a pay review body is acceptable, they ought to recognise that a pay review body will not be acceptable if it is used, as has happened during the last few years with the interim advisory committee, to reduce the real value of teachers' pay.
There is broad agreement that we need a well-paid and well-motivated professional teacher force. It is also clear that the country needs a Government who believe in and


care for state education and who will deliver success in our education system. That is why we need a Labour Government. That is why the people of this country want a Labour Government. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for our amendment.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): Well, Mr. Speaker, after an hour and 15 minutes of contributions from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, we still do not know where the Opposition stand. Will they, won't they? The answer is neither: they simply do not know.
Apart from that, we have had a good debate. There have been some excellent contributions. In particular, I welcome my hon. Friend's contributions and almost all those of Opposition Members who drew attention to the important role and the achievements of teachers.
They drew attention to teachers' commitment to improving standards and their solid professionalism in coping with change and implementing the far-reaching educational reforms that have been a feature of the past few years.
The House listened with particular attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). He knows better than most the difficulties that have faced Ministers in introducing the Bill. I was particularly grateful to him for his support as I am sure was my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) welcomed the Bill with great passion and commitment. He made it clear that he had wanted such a measure for a number of years. The whole House responded to the way in which he put his case.
Second Reading debates exist so that we can debate general principles, the broad thrust of policies and the nature of the proposed legislation. Conservative Members have explained clearly the essential features of the Bill. We have shown how a review body will recognise and strengthen the professional status of teachers. We have pointed to the extensive support for our proposals among teachers' unions and associations, and among teachers at large. We have made it clear that the award of review body status is a milestone in the development of the modern teaching profession.
Conservative Members have played their part in full measure. We have heard today telling examples of what can be achieved through good management and the effective use of resources. We have heard about the commitment of so many teachers to raising standards, and about the genuine desire that teachers show to meet the needs and aspirations of parents and pupils.
The picture of the teaching profession painted by most hon. Members during the debate chimes with my own experience. During my visits to schools, I meet dedicated teachers and enthusiastic pupils. I find it hard to discern the poor standards which others appear to see so readily. However, there are problems. Too many children have lower levels of attainment than they should have. Too many finish their education at 16 and the teaching force in some areas is not as strong as we need it to be. Resources are not always targeted effectively to raise standards and to respond to parents' concern.
Opposition Members insist on talking about the problems in schools. They stress the difficulties and failures

and accentuate the negative. They do our teachers and children a grave disservice by ignoring or underplaying teachers' achievements and successes.
It is perhaps not surprising that many teachers believe that their achievements do not gain them the recognition they deserve. The Bill is an essential step in the process of restoring teachers' self-respect. My right hon. Friend and I share wholeheartedly the concern of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to raise the standing of teachers in society. The establishment of the review body is a tangible expression of that commitment.

Mr. Straw: As the Prime Minister is now here, will the Minister take his advice on a question that the Secretary of State felt unable to answer, on the grounds that he was not involved in the discussions? The Times Educational Supplement reported that the Treasury, with the present Prime Minister as Chancellor, had opposed a pay review body. Was that correct? I am happy to continue talking while the Minister takes the advice of his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Eggar: I do not need to take advice from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are looking forward. We are introducing a pay review body. That decision would not have been possible without the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. We expected to hear whether the Opposition support a pay review body. We have had 75 minutes of waffle but no answer to that fundamental question.
We have heard much about teachers' rights. Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would think that that amounted to teachers' rights to take industrial action and to send children home. Conservative Members know that the rights teachers hold dear are the rights to respect, to professional status, to fair treatment and to fair pay.
There is a further right that the hon. Member for Blackburn has denied teachers—the right to know the policy of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition. We know the position on the pay review body of all my hon. Friends and all Opposition Members, with the exception of the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). Everyone else has made their position absolutely clear.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: At what stage did Ministers decide to review the policy in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill?

Mr. Eggar: Ministers must consider policy in the light of developments. As the Bill progressed, we carefully monitored the attitude of teacher unions and associations and held discussions on the best way forward. We eventually reached the conclusion, with the full support of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the best way forward for the teaching profession and our children was the introduction of a pay review body.

Dr. Hampson: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) dithered on whether he could bring himself to oppose a professional review body because the NUT is against it, but the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) did seem to endorse the view expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—that the Labour party believes in teachers' right to strike. A pay review body will enhance the teaching profession and avoid classroom disruption.

Mr. Eggar: Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have extolled the virtue of teachers' right to strike, but have forgotten the right of children to learn.
I urge Opposition Members to take immediate steps to make it clear to the teaching profession whether they support a pay review body. The issues are not complicated, and the alternatives are not wide-ranging. The hon. Member for Blackburn does not need a plethora of facts and figures. As a special concession, we shall not ask him to cost his proposed alternative to a pay review body, but will he please let us know what the Opposition's position is?
There has been a torrent of words from the Opposition, but they have said nothing. They should stop dithering and trying the patience of the House, and should make their position clear. They owe that to teachers and to the country. I am willing to give way to the hon. Member for Blackburn. His silence speaks volumes.
Is the answer of the Opposition to the clear and simple question, "What pay machinery do you want?" a simple "Don't know; we shall have to consult the NUT"? The Opposition may not know what they think, but teachers do and will draw their own conclusions from their silence.
At one point in the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn, I thought that we might be getting an answer. He said, yes, he wanted a pay review body for teachers, but, no, he would not support our Bill, which introduces a pay review body: yes, he wants a pay review, but, no, he will not accept our pay review body. That is not a clear policy for the Opposition.
Then the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) entered the fray. In an intervention, he asked the hon. Member for Blackburn whether he believed that a small minority of teachers—presumably members of the NUT—would force the Labour party not to introduce a pay review body. The hon. Member for Blackburn said, "No, we will not be dictated to by a small minority of teachers," but he did not make it clear exactly why and in what circumstances he would have a pay review body. He said that the Labour party needed agreement, but he did not make it clear whether that agreement would be of all teachers, including all or part of the NUT.
I had thought that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) would save his boss, the hon. Member for Blackburn, from the ignominy of not making the position clear, but he did not. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central spoke for 25 minutes before even mentioning a pay review body. Having done so, he simply talked about the virtues of the Labour party. The Labour party may have many virtues, but one of them is not the virtue of making its position about a pay review body clear.
To be fair to the hon. Member for Blackburn——

Mr. Straw: No.

Mr. Eggar: I understand why the hon. Member for Blackburn does not want me to be fair. He made a substantive point, which was picked up by the hon. Member for Truro, when he referred to clause 1(4), especially the power of the Secretary of State to give directions. Because of the way in which teachers are employed, they have statutory pay and conditions. From that point of view, they are unique among those groups that have the benefit of a pay review body.
Because of the nature of teachers' employment, we have introduced a Bill to cover them. The point of the Bill is to

ensure that everyone knows that teachers will be placed in the same position as other groups that have the benefit of pay review bodies, such as dentists and doctors. It is michief-making to suggest that the considerations in clause 1(4) are there to do anything more than replicate the existing informal arrangements that govern the review bodies for dentists and doctors.
The important point about clause 1(4) is that, despite what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said and the hon. Member for Blackburn implied, it does not give the Secretary of State the power to impose a financial constraint on the pay review body. In that sense, it is crucially different from the independent advisory committee, and it is as similar as we can make it to other pay review bodies.
The review body will be free to make up its mind on the basis of all the evidence put to it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that we will implement its recommendations unless there are clear and compelling reasons to do otherwise.

Mr. Straw: On what conceivable authority does the hon. Gentleman justify his claim that the wide power in clause 1(4) for the Secretary of State to give the review body directions to which it must have regard will not include financial directions? There is no point in referring to the fact that the 1987 Act went further. As the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State know, if this provision were interpreted by the courts, they would look at the words in the Bill. The Bill gives unqualified powers to the Secretary of State to issue directions as to the considerations to which the review body is to have regard. In what way do those words exclude financial considerations?

Mr. Eggar: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would get the point by now. The review body has to have regard to whatever directions the Secretary of State gives, but it does not have to abide by them. That is the critical difference between the position under the IAC and the position under the review body. That is why the new structure is as identical as we can make it to the existing review bodies.

Mr. Straw: We are making a little progress. We have now established that, as well as the Secretary of State being able to set terms of reference under clause 1(1) and having the reserve power not to accept the recommendations, the directions could include financial directions. The only difference betweeen us and the Minister is that he is saying that the review body could ignore them. Is that correct?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is scrabbling around desperately to find an excuse for not answering the fundamental question, which is, "Do the Opposition support a pay review body?" My right hon. and learned Friend made the answer clear, and so have I. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of chances to explore the question further in Committee if he still wishes to do so. However, I suspect that, by the time we reach the Committee stage, the Opposition will have realised that they must be clear on the essential question that we are discussing. They cannot continue to obfuscate this issue, which is vital to teachers, to children and to their parents.

Mr. Walden: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the real world, the most likely outcome of a pay review body for teachers would be a significant rise for teachers? Does


not that put the Opposition spokesman on education in an even more ridiculous position because, in the real world, he is opposing—or failing to commend—my right hon. Friend on that move? Is it not true that the decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education to set up the new mechanism in the full knowledge that it will in all probability lead to a significant rise for teachers underlines the Government's bold, imaginative and constructive policy?

Mr. Eggar: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is extraordinary that the Opposition, who supported a review body for so many public sector bodies, should refuse to support one for teachers. Why? They know that their paymasters—the unions—are divided, and, especially, that the National Union of Teachers cannot make up its mind about the position it should take.
In fairness, the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) spoke eloquently on behalf of the minority of the NUT. They abide by their desire to have negotiating rights, and are absolutely determined to insist that teachers should be able to take industrial action at the drop of a hat. They are the authentic voice of the Labour party, and they were as uneasy as we were about the obfuscation by their Front Bench. For the sake of teachers and children, we want to know the answer to the basic question. We have still not heard the answer from the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Leeds, Central.
The Bill is a tribute to what the teaching profession has achieved since Burnham went down in chaos. It holds out the prospect of recognition and stability in the years ahead. It is good news for teachers, and it will be good news for children and for their parents. The people who count are the children. They must come first every time. We are concerned to ensure that teachers regain their professional status, that our children are never again threatened by industrial action and that our teachers and children are able to benefit from the introduction of the national curriculum and the other reforms that we have introduced over the past few years.
We have made it clear that we will accept and implement the recommendations of the review body unless there are clear and compelling reasons for doing otherwise. We know that the Opposition agree that, at the end of the day, the Government of the day must have the last word because they are the paymaster.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: rose——

Mr. Eggar: The Bill is straightforward and its message is simple. That may be what the Opposition find so distressing. The hon. Member for Blackburn and his hon. Friends have nowhere to hide. I cannot imagine that teachers will neglect or reject the offer on the table. Teachers are too level-headed and responsible to let the opportunity of the Bill slip away.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 310.

Division No. 129]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashton, Joe


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Allen, Graham
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barron, Kevin


Armstrong, Hilary
Battle, John





Beckett, Margaret
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Beith, A. J.
Hoyle, Doug


Bellotti, David
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Benton, Joseph
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bermingham, Gerald
Illsley, Eric


Blair, Tony
Ingram, Adam


Boateng, Paul
Janner, Greville


Boyes, Roland
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Bradley, Keith
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kennedy, Charles


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Leadbitter, Ted


Buckley, George J.
Leighton, Ron


Caborn, Richard
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Callaghan, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Livingstone, Ken


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Livsey, Richard


Canavan, Dennis
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Loyden, Eddie


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McAllion, John


Clelland, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McFall, John


Corbett, Robin
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKelvey, William


Cousins, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Crowther, Stan
McMaster, Gordon


Cryer, Bob
McNamara, Kevin


Cummings, John
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Darling, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Doran, Frank
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eadie, Alexander
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fatchett, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Faulds, Andrew
Mullin, Chris


Fearn, Ronald
Nellist, Dave


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fisher, Mark
O'Brien, William


Flannery, Martin
O'Hara, Edward


Flynn, Paul
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Derek
Parry, Robert


Foulkes, George
Patchett, Terry


Fyfe, Maria
Pendry, Tom


Galloway, George
Pike, Peter L.


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gordon, Mildred
Radice, Giles


Gould, Bryan
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Redmond, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Reid, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Richardson, Jo


Hain, Peter
Robertson, George


Hardy, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rogers, Allan


Haynes, Frank
Rooker, Jeff


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rooney, Terence


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Henderson, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hinchliffe, David
Ruddock, Joan


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Hood, Jimmy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howells, Geraint
Short, Clare






Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Joan


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Wareing, Robert N.


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Snape, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wilson, Brian


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Strang, Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Jack
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dennis
Mr. Martyn Jones and


Wallace, James
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Aitken, Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Allason, Rupert
Cope, Rt Hon John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cormack, Patrick


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Amos, Alan
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Davies, Q. (Stamt'd &amp; Spald'g)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Day, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, David
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dunn, Bob


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Batiste, Spencer
Dykes, Hugh


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Evennett, David


Benyon, W.
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fallon, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Favell, Tony


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fishburn, John Dudley


Body, Sir Richard
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodlad, Alastair


Browne, John (Winchester)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Buck, Sir Antony
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Cartwright, John
Grist, Ian


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Ground, Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grylls, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Churchill, Mr
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hannam, John





Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hawkins, Christopher
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hayes, Jerry
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hayward, Robert
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Norris, Steve


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Page, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Paice, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patnick, Irvine


Holt, Richard
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Price, Sir David


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Raffan, Keith


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Jackson, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Janman, Tim
Rhodes James, Robert


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kilfedder, James
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, Sir William


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Speed, Keith


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maclean, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stern, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stokes, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Maude, Hon Francis
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mills, Iain
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thorne, Neil


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tracey, Richard






Tredinnick, David
Whitney, Ray


Trippier, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trotter, Neville
Wiggin, Jerry


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilkinson, John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilshire, David


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Walters, Sir Dennis
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Ward, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Warren, Kenneth



Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. David Lightbown and


Wheeler, Sir John
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

SCHOOL TEACHERS PAY AND CONDITIONS (No. 2) BILL [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — National Curriculum

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Geography) (England) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 678), dated 13th March 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following motion:
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in History) (England) Order 1991 (SI, 1991, No. 681), dated 13th March 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be annulled.
I appeal to Front-Bench spokesmen and Back-Bench Members on both sides of the Chamber to be brief. Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Straw: I think that the House knows that the Opposition accept the principle of the national curriculum. It is right that Parliament should have a role in laying down the framework of what is taught in schools and in better defining the entitlement of each child during its years of compulsory education. There were always dangers that without proper checks parliamentary and ministerial power could be abused or used for partisan ends, and for that reason a careful procedure for establishing a national curriculum and agreeing it was laid down in the Education Reform Act 1988.
The effective and fair operation of the procedures was always to depend, as so often in this country, upon convention and self-denial by politicians rather than by explicit rule. As history and politics are so intertwined, history was bound to pose the greatest test of those procedures. The original proposals of the history working party aroused great debate about the balance between facts and understanding, and the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), now the Leader of the House, referred the matter back to the National Curriculum Council. The council took account of his views, and many others, and made revised proposals for which there was wide agreement both inside and outside the profession.
In setting out his views in July 1990, the previous Secretary of State explicitly endorsed the proposal for 20th century history to be taught to the present day. He argued only for a "better overview" of 20th-century history, including in particular the development of the European Community.
On 2 November 1990, the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), replaced the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South. Over Christmas, we understand, and without any debate or consultation, he took his blue pencil to the draft curriculum. He decided that history was to stop in the mid 1960s. His method of amendment was crude and the result was bizarre. The Berlin wall was deleted. It was replaced by the Berlin airlift. "Modern Britain" was replaced by "Victorian Britain", the "middle east" by "Germany", and separately by the "Ottoman empire" and the "Irish Republic" by the "Irish Free State and Eire". An attainment target about


changing attitudes towards the European Community
was replaced by one about
attitudes of different countries to the League of Nations".
Early 1960s end-dates were then inserted. The consequence of these was that the Americans were about to win in Vietnam, apartheid was fully effective in South Africa, large parts of Africa were still colonies and the middle east stopped with the six-day war in 1967.
As is often the case with such vulgar exercises, some parts escaped notice, as if to mock the censors. So a supplementary unit continues, unamended, to require study from before 1500 to until the present day.
In making those decisions, the Secretary of State claimed that national curriculum history should not go beyond the early 1960s because of the difficulty of treating such matters with an "historical perspective". He said that everything post early-1960s was "current affairs". He failed to take accounst of the fact that two thirds of all general certificate of secondary education history syllabuses go beyond the early 1960s. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been unable to produce before Parliament any evidence of a lack of historical perspective in such teaching. Indeed, on 12 February he told me that political bias was not the reason for his decision. In the absence of any evidence to justify his decision, the Secretary of State must recognise that he has gratuitously attacked the skill and professional integrity of history teachers.
The Secretary of State's claim that anything after the late 1960s is current affairs is patently absurd. None of the children studying the curriculum will have been born before 1980. Current affairs are about affairs that are current in the news. There is no room for it in the already overcrowded timetable of secondary schools. When he responds to this brief debate, the Secretary of State may claim that he is not prohibiting the teaching of post-1960 or post-1970 history. That is disingenuous, because the timetables are packed out with the requirements of the national curriculum. What adds to the vacuity of the Secretary of State's prohibition is that it will not apply to children in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland or to children in private schools which conveniently are exempt from the national curriculum.
The Secretary of State applied a similar crude approach to geography. Without notice to anyone, he decided to remove inquiry skills, the use of secondary sources and diagrams from statements of attainment because he said that, however desirable, they are not particular to geography. In saying that, he found himself in conflict with everyone who has knowledge of the subject and also with parts of his own Government. Last year's Department of the Environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", envisaged an important role for geography making young people more aware of and able to participate in action about environmental methods.
Even the Secretary of State was surprised by the depth and extent of the criticism of his decisions about history and geography. That criticism came from unexpected quarters. For example, Lord Blake, a Conservative peer and an official biographer of the Conservative party——

Mr. Giles Radice: And a decent historian.

Mr. Straw: Yes, and a decent historian. Lord Blake said
It is ridiculous to stop history in the 1960s. It could stop round about the 1980s. There, you are coming into an era of controversial politics with the Thatcher revolution and that should be discussed in current-affairs lessons.
He said that it was ridiculous to stop it in the 1960s or 1970s.
In the orders that we are discussing, the Secretary of State recognised his earlier error and impetuosity and tried to climb down. However, the result is quite unsatisfactory. The 30-year rule has been abandoned, but it is to be replaced by a 20-year rule. Date-capping will stand in all its arbitrary absurdity. As Robert Medley, the chairman of the Historical Association's school council, said:
We don't think changing it from a 30-year rule to a 20-year rule has made any difference. The principle of the thing is still daft.
Many of the original silly changes, including swapping the European Community with the League of Nations and modern Britain for Victorian Britain, remain in the supplementary order. They are included in the programme of studies for the fourth key stage, levels 4 to10. They include the cut-off dates in the mid-1960s.
With regard to geography, the Secretary of State reintroduced the study of competition over land use and the conflicting demands on places of scenic attraction. However, he refused to accept a much more fundamental point—the need for an emphasis on an investigative approach to geography, which the Geographical Association has said is fundamental to what geography is about.
With the power over the curriculum which has been taken by Ministers and by the House go some very important responsibilities, not least to ensure that we do not treat the curriculum in a partisan way. So far as possible, changes should be made in a consensual way and we should not treat the curriculum as a party political football.
The Secretary of State's two predecessors, both Conservatives, were alive to their responsibilities and they acted carefully when seeking to make changes in draft orders. They also gave notice of any changes that they had in mind with reference to proposals for working parties. The present Secretary of State has acted differently. Apart from the merit, or lack of merit, in his proposals, there is the charge that he has failed to follow the spirit of the procedures. In particular, on 2 November he took no account whatsoever of the position of his predecessors, and he then made proposals, of which no notice had ever been made by his predecessors, on points to which they had never taken objection in the drafts of the working party and National Curriculum Council reports.
The Secretary of State's predecessors were alive to their responsibilities, but this Secretary of State has shown by his conduct that he is incapable of appreciating those responsibilities, let alone measuring up to them. Because of that, we tabled the prayers to annul the orders, and I support them.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): We have just had a debate in which the Opposition refused to take any clear stand on an extremely important matter for the future. We now have the Opposition spokesman taking a totally bogus stand, trying to find partisan controversy where none should exist, on


the past, as it happens, and on geography. I entirely refute his suggestion that what has happened brings a hint of party politics into the national curriculum. When the National Curriculum Council put proposals to me, I put out a draft order, with the reactions of me, Her Majesty's inspectorate and my Department to that draft order. We consulted on it. In the light of that consultation, we produced final orders.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is not trying to damage the national curriculum, but he will do so if he tries to invent partisan disputes at the late stage of a process of putting into place the orders for two key parts of the curriculum—geography and history.
I trust that, by now, hon. Members support the principle of the national curriculum, and also support the fact that the national curriculum will include history and geography as two of the key subjects. We all know that history and geography in particular have been fading in importance and sometimes in the strength with which they have been taught in schools in recent years. Her Majesty's inspectors have found standards of work in primary schools generally weak in both subjects. In secondary schools, HMI has found that the so-called humanities approach adopted by some schools fails to do justice to either history or geography. The Government are reviving history and geography as serious subjects in our schools for our pupils. The Government may take credit for including them in the national curriculum and for making the orders.
The orders set out a solid foundation of knowledge, understanding and skills which all children should have in both subjects. We are reinstating those important parts of our knowledge, life, culture and history in our schools.
The process that I have described was always envisaged in orders that have been fully consulted on at every stage, of publishing draft orders with the Secretary of State's reactions to the final proposals from the National Curriculum Council, at which it arrived after consultation, and building on consultation that it has carried out from the final proposals of the working party. I then consulted on those and, in the end, made various changes when I first published the draft and again in the light of the final consultation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: This is a prayer, and we have a little more than an hour left, and I made a long speech on the Bill. I might give way in a while, but I shall have to see how long I take.
Let me begin with geography. The geography order sets out to make sure that our young people learn some geography, not just vague concepts and attitudes which relate to various subjects. In geography, we have restored learning about places and where they are—something which nowadays is too often played down in some schools. The most elementary cross-examination of pupils reveals that their knowledge of where places are in the world is not what it should be. I, together with many parents, employers and others, believe that knowing about places—to use that simplistic phrase to describe an awareness of the geography of the world—is important.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way yet, for the reason that I have given.
Of course, that is not the be-all and end-all of geography. Angry teachers have told me that all I am doing is wanting to go back to teaching about the capes and bays of England. I would not dream of putting such a burden on a geography teacher. It is essential to have some knowledge of place if pupils are to go on to develop some understanding of the world and the way in which different countries and places relate to each other.
The order also ensures that all pupils will be taught how to use maps and other geographical skills. They will develop their knowledge of human and physical geography in the context of real places. Last but not least, the order recognises the importance of learning about the environment. There was a flurry of excitement when it was said that I had struck out environmental geography. In fact, it is one of the five attainment targets for geography. Indeed, together with physical geography, it is the part of the NCC's proposals that I have scarcely touched at all. I made no changes to either before going to the draft order phase. Overall, the order's coverage of places, of human and physical geography and of the environment has been widely welcomed by geographers.
It was against that background—against the fact that the great bulk of the subject has been modified in a way that has not excited any controversy—that some controversy arose about some of the changes. With respect, much of the criticism was based on a misunderstanding and a certain reading of lobbying letters and press reports rather more than on any reading of the orders themselves. I do not usually dismiss all criticisms, but I received many letters from people who had plainly not read the orders. They were the people who said that I had struck out all environmental geography, whereas it remains one fifth of the attainment targets, and quite untouched.
The Geographical Association has sent out a standard letter—I do not complain about that—to every Member of Parliament and many other people and to all the members of the association, complaining about the changes that have been made, but it does not actually state what those changes are. With the greatest respect, a lot of heat has been generated, but perhaps not a great deal of light about what the association was complaining about. The association's full submission was presented to me after we had introduced the draft order and before we made the final order, and I accepted many of its points. We have had a new lay-out for the programmes of study, which the association was right to say were previously laid out in a confused fashion. That was a major re-write. We put back conflicts over land use and, as the hon. Member for Blackburn fairly conceded, the points about landscape.
However, the hon. Gentleman did not address the two remaining issues about which people are still arguing. The first is the concern that I am said to have removed inquiry skills from being part of geography. I accept that inquiry is an important part of geographical work. Pupils should take an active role in their lessons and inquire about the nature of the issues that emerge in the course of their study of geography and of our fragile environment. The programmes of study for geography clearly state that inquiry should form part of geography lessons.
However, I did remove some of the detailed requirements in the programmes of study, stating exactly what pupils should do—and I do not apologise for that.


The orders should not prescribe everything that happens in the classroom and take away all discretion from the teacher. In addition, some of the things that are allegedly related to inquiry skills in geography are so general as to be almost meaningless in the context of this part of the curriculum.
Two examples of my deletions are:
Explore how people vary in their views about the value and enjoyment of environments.
There is no reference to where or to what kind of environment. The other example reads:
Collect, present and interpret data as part of an inquiry.
That does not even specify "as part of a geographical inquiry". All that sort of stuff was taken out of an overloaded order largely to tidy it up—[Interruption.] It is not silly—at least I am referring to what I deleted. The hon. Member for Blackburn huffed and puffed but did not complain about anything that I had taken out. He gave no examples, yet I made countless changes when going through the order.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way once on geography when I have finished this point.
The fuss is meant to be about inquiry processes, and attitudes and values. Again, I accept that geography lessons will deal with issues on which there are conflicting points of view. It is the teacher's job to explain them to pupils in a balanced way. It is total nonsense for the hon. Member for Blackburn to keep saying that I have attacked the integrity of teachers. I have not done that in either geography or history from beginning to end. It is a proper and necessary part of geography, and the order provides for it.
I was not persuaded that pupils should be tested on their knowledge of what people thought about an issue, in isolation from knowledge and understanding of the relevant facts. It is taking the study of attitudes in geography too far if one tests people on their knowledge about other people's attitudes to somewhere, without knowing much about where that somewhere is, or what the attitudes are for.
The result is a tidier order, which is more manageable in the classroom. I have accepted far more of the representations received during consultation than I have rejected. I accept the assertion of the hon. Member for Blackburn that he has read the order, as opposed to many people who have only read the standard letter. However, in so far as the hon. Gentleman is specific about what was wrong in geography, given that last week his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales said that there was too much concentration on process in parts of the curriculum and not enough on content, I think that the order has a lot of content—far more than there has been in geography for many years. It is no good saying that there should be more process, and carrying on about inquiry skills, attitudes and opinions, put in to the exclusion of content or so that it is unmanageable.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: May I question the Secretary of State on the subject of collecting data? One of the key elements in geography teaching is that pupils should go out from the classroom to collect information and then bring it back and analyse it. It has been suggested that the

Minister is taking out the collection of data because he is trying to discourage field work, which he knows is expensive. The Government have not been prepared to make the resources available so that all pupils can get some time out of their classroom to look at the environment.

Mr. Clarke: The use of maps and field work are in place in the order. We have cut out of the syllabus examining people on the collection of data that might have no relevance to geography. The hon. Gentleman will find that the order provides for plenty of going out of the classroom to collect things, and for the sort of experience that he describes.
History was bound to excite the most public debate. I am glad to say that most of that took place before my time as Secretary of State, although I would have happily joined in, as I am closely interested in the subject. History arouses strong feelings and passionate disagreements. Inevitably there are political undercurrents to the debate about history, which have been pretty thoroughly aired in the past year or two.
The result has been no fewer than three separate stages of consultation about history, instead of the usual two. My predecessor thoroughly explored opinion before he responded, even in the first place, to the history working group's report. Of course the outcome will not satisfy everyone. It is impossible to come to any conclusion in this field. However, I believe that we have reached a broad consensus on what school history should be like, which is reflected in the order.
By the time I arrived, the mass of political representation—both left and right made representations ferociously to my predecessors—had more or less died down. That meant that I was not able to inject any of my reactions to the content of the programme of study. I find it a bit odd that the renaissance and much of European history plays such a small part in the curriculum, but that is all water under the bridge, and I would not dream of reopening the debate.
There is an argument about whether there is enough factual knowledge in the programme. I still get that attack from those who are slightly on the right of politics, because the attainment targets in history are in general terms, and the substance of history is all in the programmes of study. It would be a great misfortune—a disaster—if knowledge of historical fact was ironed out of the whole subject and the attainment targets were attitude-dominated.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Blackburn agrees, because I am sure that there are people to the left of him in the Labour party who are shocked to discover that dead people, dates and things that happened in the past are being referred to at all. I can reassure those who believe, as I do, that one of the great things in history is to teach a good corpus of factual knowledge, that it is not possible to achieve any levels in the attainment targets without reference to programmes of study.
Although we may all have our personal preferences—I have expressed surprise that the renaissance features to such a limited extent; it is not a period on which I claim to be particularly strong, but it is surely a key period in the history of mankind—a good body of knowledge is none the less represented, and pupils will be tested on it according to the attainment targets.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it true that, some time after Commander Saunders-Watson had written his report, a memorandum


was issued by Professor Brian Griffiths rubbishing that report? If so, can a copy of the Griffiths memorandum be put in the Library?

Mr. Clarke: As that would have happened before my time, I do not know whether it is true or not. Representations about history, however, flowed in from all sides. Now, when the dust has settled down, we are left with one issue: the distinction that I have insisted on drawing between history and current affairs. The hon. Member for Blackburn is still going on about that.
No one is saying that there should be no reference to current affairs in the classroom. Plainly—particularly as children grow older—plenty of discussion about current affairs will take place. That is fine: it happened in my day, and it should still happen nowadays. I have never attacked the ability of good teachers to handle such discussion in a detached and objective way. I trust that a high proportion of children debated the recent events in the Gulf, and that opinions of all kinds were expressed; and I have no doubt that that was managed sensibly in the classroom. We are arguing about whether current affairs should be made a legally required part of the history syllabus.
If the order were allowed to include all events up to the present day in the curriculum, we should not merely be giving teachers discretion to allow current affairs to be raised. They already have that discretion, and we are not stopping them raising any subject. If the change were made, they would be required by law to cover today's events as part of the history curriculum, and would have to test pupils' understanding of current political issues as part of the history testing process. I find that slightly bizarre, but it is what the hon. Member for Blackburn wants.

Mr. Giles Radice: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will if I finish before 10.45 pm.
Another important principle is the definition of history. What is the nature of history? No one is banning current affairs; no one is saying that pupils cannot discuss what is happening today. There is, however, a strong argument, which I personally support, that history—in so far as it is worth while to define the subject; some people have written volumes in an attempt to do so—involves the making of judgments concerned with historical perspective. There is no doubt that a judgment made at even a short distance from the event or pattern of events and involving a backward-looking view will differ from an instant reaction to the morning's newspapers, whose contents would, if the Opposition's proposal were accepted, be described as "history" for the purposes of the national curriculum.
The original draft order included a date, which did not occur throughout but was a key part of the order. That was challenged. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who came to tell me that he thought that one cut-off point was somewhat arbitrary and that, apart from anything else, repeated orders would be needed to bring the position up to date each year—unless history became ever more distant, falling away behind us, as a result of a parliamentary order.
My hon. Friend came up with the best suggestion that I heard throughout the consultation period. If we altered the wording of the order so that it referred to a cut-off of

about 20 years ago—not a fixed date—historical perspective and the ability to form judgments on it would roll forward with time. I have no doubt that all the orders will be reviewed from time to time as the curriculum evolves and people form a view about what subject matter it should contain.

Mr. Radice: Surely that phrase "about 20 years ago" exposes the problem. Such people as Professor Keith Robbins and Lord Blake have pointed this out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Let us take our entry into the Common Market, which happened, I believe, in January 1972—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nineteen seventy-three"] That makes my point even better. That event would be ruled out, by legal requirement. Therefore, one learns about the debates that took place in the House, but one does not learn about the date of entry. According to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's definition, that would be the case. That is precisely why Lord Blake and Professor Keith Robbins, who is president of the Historical Association, said that this is not a stupid argument. It is an argument made by serious historians—historians rather more serious than the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and he ought to take it seriously.

Mr. Clarke: They may be more serious historians than I, but, with respect, they have misunderstood the nature of the order. Their argument is founded on the mistaken belief that a ban is being placed on anything that happened more than 20 years ago. That is not the case. Any history teacher who wishes to take the history of our relationship with the European Community up to the date of our entry or beyond is perfectly free to do so. No one is banning it. As for the curriculum and the testing, the date is about 20 years ago.
The first draft, when I went for the early 1960s, sought to illustrate in various areas of history how one might take a suitable cut-off point—the death of President Kennedy or the death of Khruschev—near enough around 20 years ago in order to consider a particular sequence of events that represent the logical end of a course of study. I believe that that was justified. It would be absolutely absurd to alter it and make it a legal requirement that, as part of the history curriculum, pupils should be tested on their knowledge of bang up-to-date events and exchanges taking place across the Dispatch Box at the moment. Pupils are perfectly free to discuss all that with their teachers, but it certainly should be no part of the legally required history curriculum.
I discussed with those who advise me all sorts of other things that led to a great deal of re-writing of the history syllabus that no one seemed to have noticed. That again led me to have slight doubts as to whether anybody had read it properly. Some of the examples seemed to me slightly odd. I did not understand them, so we changed them.
Under the heading "The use of historical sources" the draft that reached me asked pupils to
Show how a US account of the building of the Berlin Wall provides evidence of US attitudes towards the event but reveals little about why the Wall was built.
That seemed to me to presuppose that all American authors have the same view and that there was a United States account. It was not obvious to me what United States attitudes to the wall that question would reveal. The various Americans I know hold a wide range of views about the Berlin wall. I do not see why any American


account will reveal why the wall was built. A number of Americans have a pretty shrewd idea why the wall was built, so I did not understand the question.
Explain why gaps in sources relating to collectivisation in the USSR in the 1930s make it difficult to reach definitive conclusions.
It is difficult to reach definitive conclusions on any historical subject that I have encountered. Most historians will probably say that it is unwise to do so. I could not understand what that was meant to mean. Does it mean that we do not know exactly how many people died? Does it mean that we do not know exactly what the collectivisation process is? What was it going into the national curriculum for, and as an example of what? We changed it and gave a whole lot of other examples for which the Government can modestly take credit, because so far no one has criticised any of them.
The hon. Member for Blackburn did not leave it to others; he says that he does not like any of the examples and that he thinks that they are partisan and biased. They are plainly not. It is a good, objective history course.
The order is an important step forward. It puts into the schools curriculum sensible history and geography that will be properly tested. These subjects are put back where they deserve to be—in the main stream of our education system. Some hon. Members may not have read what is contained in the folders that lie in front of them. Anybody who can get through the full compass of the geography curriculum and the full compass of the history curriculum and at the end get attainment level 10 may be no wiser, but he or she will certainly be better informed. It is a good, solid body of teaching that we are putting into our schools, and it is high time, too. These bogus arguments about the curriculum are rather silly.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I shall not detain the House long as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. In what was a most disingenuous speech, the Secretary of State was really telling the House that the orders do nothing. We know that that is not the case, and so do the Historical Association and the teaching profession.
I would make the same speech if we were in government, trying to persuade the House to accept such a measure. I fear any Government telling teachers what they shall not teach. It is fair enough to have a national curriculum setting out what children should be taught, but it is wrong to say what should not be taught or to tell teachers how to teach their subjects. Whatever the Secretary of State may have said, that is how teachers will perceive the measure. They know that there is an embargo on teaching 20 years of history. History teachers, headmasters and particularly school governors are not educational lawyers. They will feel restrained in the teaching of their subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was absolutely right. Teaching geography in the way that he described turns youngsters into little explorers. In a small way, they are doing what an explorer does in Africa, and they should be examined in that. It is more dangerous when the Government seek to interfere in the teaching of history.
The Secretary of State mentioned the Gulf war. It would be perfectly reasonable for a teacher who was teaching mediaeval history and covering the history of the crusades and their effects on history to discuss the Gulf war. The Gulf war is now history. History starts now, just as the future starts now. It is a seamless robe and we cannot have a 20-year rule.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Oakes: I promised Mr. Speaker that I would be brief. I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets a chance to speak.
It would be perfectly feasible for a teacher to discuss western interference in the middle east and its effects on history. The purpose of teaching history is not to recount a list of facts but for children to learn about the past in relation to the present and apply that knowledge to future events. That is essential in a democracy. If teachers are teaching about the famine in Ireland, it is perfectly relevant for them to refer to that and to examine the Secretary of State's brilliant talks—he is doing a tremendous job—in the light of the historical perspective of the horrors in Ireland, which are still remembered 150 years later. It would be perfectly logical for an examination question to ask how our Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can succeed against that background.
Finally, I am addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all right hon. and hon. Members as 650 history teachers. We all take tourists around this place. We talk about Simon de Montfort and the row between the Lords and the Commons. We talk about the civil war and show them the painting with Mr. Speaker Lenthall. We then take them into the Chamber and out into Westminster Hall. When I take people round, I talk about the fight for democracy over hundreds of years—it did not happen overnight—and I tell them about events that have occurred in the past 20

years. I tell them about the IRA bomb in Westminster Hall and the damage that was caused. I take them outside and tell them about the murder of Airey Neave in 1979 when he was coming out of the car park. I do so because history is a seamless robe. I would tell those children that the fight for democracy is not over because there are still terrorist forces that would destroy it.
If I were a history teacher—I might be wrong and the Secretary of State might be right—I would be fearful of putting my job on the line by including such information in my teaching of historical events before the 20-year rule.
The Government should withdraw the orders, which are either useless or harmful in a democratic society.

Sir Timothy Raison: I was not on the Standing Committee that considered the Education Reform Bill, but I was struck by how little attention was paid to the content of the national curriculum. There were battles on opting out, the Inner London education authority and so on, but remarkably little time was spent in considering the curriculum.
It was a pity that the question was not raised or seriously discussed of whether history should be not only one of the 10 subjects available in the national curriculum but one of the core subjects. I believe that it should have been a core subject. I tabled an amendment to that effect on Report, but it was not called.
History has almost unique qualities. It is the best tool for studying relationships in society. One gets a sense of a shared past and of shared or perhaps unshared divergences. A. L. Rowse said that history gives a unity to all the other arts subjects, and anthropology, sociology, economics, law and languages all draw on history. It helps to transmit the best in our culture from one generation to another, which should be the essence of education, and contains much great literature. It spans the factual and the romatic and teaches honest analysis. It is a pity that it does not play a larger part in the curriculum.
Everybody will agree that at the heart of history is the sense of perspective, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred. It is derived from its focus on the past. We know that history has been defined over and again, but the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as
that branch of knowledge which deals with past events, as recorded in writings or otherwise ascertained; the formal record of the past.
We must accept that. We all realise that history can be extrapolated. A good history teacher will draw lessons from history that are applicable today, but it is more important that children up to 16 get a grasp of the basic facts and methods of history rather than it being turned into a current affairs seminar.
In a sense, I might argue otherwise. One of the features of the past few years that will not be included in the main core is the demise of socialism. It might be good if everybody learned about that at school, but I am prepared to forgo that in the interests of achieving some principle in history.
The 20-year period, roughly speaking, coincides with my period as a Member of Parliament. The main events of the 1970s were our entry into the European Community, the saga of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, followed by the miners' strike, our taking direct rule in Northern Ireland, the recourse of the Labour


Government to the IMF in 1976, the battle about devolution, the events of the winter of 1978–79 and the arrival in 1979 of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) as Prime Minister.
Those were important and, in some cases, stirring events. They will become the absolute stuff of history, and there are two ingredients in almost every case. The first is that most of them still arouse intensely political passions—they would stir the House this evening if we were to start arguing about them—and the second is that, by and large, we do not yet have the historical writings to enable us to deal with them satisfactorily. History requires perspective. We do not yet have the literature to allow us to deal with those matters as thoroughly as we would like.
I quote my experience. A year or two ago, I sat down to write a history of Conservative social policy since the war. I have no doubt that the period in the post-war years when I was writing as an historian from a more distant past was very much better history than the past decade when, to some extent, I was involved in events. That is the essence of history: one must stand back.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is right to take the stance he took. As he said, it does not preclude mention of recent events. It could not possibly do so. Nevertheless, we should adopt the view that history belongs to the more distant past and is best taught on that basis. Any attempt to do otherwise would undermine many of the characteristics that make it such an important subject.

11 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an interesting and worthwhile debate, and I regret that we do not have longer to give to this important subject. There is a paradox in Government policy in the home affairs sectors. Earlier today the Secretary of State for Health said that it was not his job to become involved in the details of administration of parts of the health service. Later in the day the Secretary of State for Education and Science gave his reasons for including something and excluding something else.
Our wish to incorporate a coherent view of what should be taught in history and geography comes not before time. As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) said, they are important subjects. I regret that they are not given sufficient recognition as proper subjects that educated people in a range of disciplines later.
I am one of those—I suppose that many hon. Members share this disadvantage—whose teenage education in history and geography suffered from being extremely partial. Whole periods of history and sectors of geography went untaught. I accept that the national curriculum seems to deal with that partial teaching approach, but it stops too early and has made some mistakes.
However well informed or ill informed the Secretary of State for Education and Science thinks the people who wrote to us are, it is regrettable that the professional groupings of those responsible for teaching history and geography are not happy about what they will soon be asked to teach. It would have been far better if we had tried earlier to reach greater agreement among the parties and, more important, the politicians and professionals.
Problems remain. There will be partial teaching for those who finish their schooling in either history or geography at 14. I think that I am right in saying that the only piece of 20th century history that will have been taught to people who finish after the third key stage will be the history of the second world war. That is a grave error and distorts social and historical trends throughout the century.
Similar problems arise because of our lack of knowledge about the alternative short courses. The Secretary of State announced in Leeds that there would be short courses for those who stay on at school to complement compulsory education to 14 so that people do not leave school with third key stage education in history or geography. Sadly, we still do not know what those short courses will include. It might alleviate some fears if we did know. We do not have the details of those courses—they are concept rather than programme. What are the attainment targets? Will level 10 be reached by those following those courses, or will it be level 7 or 3? There are many questions relevant to how much people will know on leaving school. I regret that we do not yet have the necessary information.
My next point is a practical one. Teachers make one complaint above all to hon. Members, and that is the amount of work that they are asked to take on at a late stage. It is late in terms of next year's work for teachers now to begin to deal with the curriculum. I am not saying that they will not try or that they will not do a good job, but it is a regrettable additional imposition on people who even Ministers now concede are asked to deal with too much too quickly.
I shall deal briefly with the two subjects under discussion. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Aylesbury, but I dissent from the view that all the matters about which he spoke—especially entry into the European Community—cannot and should not properly be taught as history even at this remove. It is difficult and arbitrary to draw a line and say that events that happened within the past 20 years are not history. I heard what the Secretary of State said, and I understand that it is not because such matters will not arise in the context of the school day, the school debate and the school timetable. However, there are historical patterns such as the development of Europe, the rise and fall of philosophies including communism and socialism and the movement towards integration after the second world war. Arbitrary cut-off points are an unfortunate division between what is history and what is actuality. There are no stopping or starting points between the two.
Our history syllabus focuses too heavily—and I could cite specifics—on a Britain-centred perspective of the world, on Britain as an economic, successful, capitalist market economy. I am making not a partisan point but one about our place in the world. Our syllabus suffers from still not providing an opportunity for people to see Britain in its historical context as one of more than 150 sovereign states in a complex and ever-changing world.
The Secretary of State knows what the dispute over geography is about. It is about how much balance is given to the study of facts, places, locations and geographic skills. I agree that people should know their factual geography. As the Prince of Wales said in another context, it is most important that people leave school with basic


knowledge. However, to do that to the exclusion of some of the process skills—as appears to be the case—would tilt the balance in the wrong direction.
The orders will determine what young people learn in two key subjects for the next generation. We accept that we are not serving young people well in the education that is provided. We are not doing well in the international league table. I regret that the way that we have tampered so arbitrarily with the syllabus will not achieve the best result. For that reason, my colleagues and I support the Labour party in asking that the orders be annulled.

Mr. George Walden: This is a pretty rum debate. Tonight we are deciding what millions of children will study for millions of hours in subjects that used to be left to the profession. How did that happen? It happened because all parties and the country as a whole felt that the professionals were not doing a good enough job of these and other subjects. Otherwise, how did the Labour and Liberal parties join a Conservative Government in setting up a national curriculum? Let us be frank and honest about it. We are discussing the details of a curriculum and I should have preferred this debate not to have occurred. There is no alternative but to do what we are doing, so we must do it as best we can. In the case of a sensitive subject such as history, that depends on objectivity.
Leaving aside my own partisan views, I much prefer the Johnsonian sound sense of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the subject to the views of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) if only because a few hours before the hon. Gentleman refused to take a position on an education subject because he did not have the permission of the National Union of Teachers. I suspect that his judgment on matters involving the curriculum would be similarly influenced by the NUT, and I find that disturbing. I do not accept that I am making a political accusation: it is a factual observation.
It is also factual to say that the historical reasons why we have come tonight to the curious position of discussing the details of the curriculum go back to a philosophical failing in our education system for which the Opposition have more responsibility than we have. I do not deny that we too have responsibility historically for allowing the position to arise, but I believe that the main problem stems from methods of teaching which have gone wildly astray and which my right hon. and learned Friend is putting right tonight.
Other hon. Members have referred to the question of historical perspective. There is a danger in our teaching and in our culture—and, again, this is not a partisan point—of a relentlessly contemporary approach. In our schools in art, in literature and in history to some extent, there has been a drift, perhaps impelled by the power of the media, towards a relentlessly contemporary attitude to the exclusion of historical perspective or of simple, factual historical knowledge. In art, there may have been an exclusion of the awareness of renaissance techniques in favour of 20th century movements such as impressionism and expressionism. In literature, we have already reached the stage at which there are A-level syllabuses that can be tackled without any knowledge of pre-20th century literature. That is an odd state of affairs.
We have a similar problem with history. It is, of course, arbitrary to cut off the history of the past 20 years. My

right hon. and learned Friend has explained that it will be possible to teach it in other ways, so there is no ban. However, I believe that there must be a cut-off point if only because Opposition and Conservative Members have reflected teachers' concerns that the national curriculum is becoming too crowded. However, the hon. Member for Blackburn says that we should try to cram even more into the history curriculum. That time would be better used in instilling in our pupils the maximum historical knowledge so that their ability to make judgments of recent events will improve.
In what society do children live today? It is not the society in which we were brought up. It is a society in which contemporary history oozes at children from every pore of the media. It oozes from television, which children watch for an average of three or four hours a day, from the radio and from the newspapers. Whichever way they turn, contemporary events are pumped at them. For one short time in their childhood they can be removed from these incredible pressures—leaving aside moral pressures, which are very important—so that they can have some idea and some imagination of possible alternative worlds which existed in the past, which will enable them to detach themselves for a brief moment of their childhood from the pressures of the media that will engulf them for the rest of their lives.
For that reason and for the practical reason that I mentioned earlier—that we must not try to over-cram the curriculum—I believe that, once again, my right hon. and learned Friend has exercised in the right direction what I described earlier as his Johnsonian judgment.

Mr. Peter Archer: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is right in believing that it is not as a result of oversight that the House is deciding what subjects shall be taught in schools and how they will be taught. It is a consequence of deliberate policy. Listening to the Secretary of State in his opening speech, however, one would have thought that we were not doing it at all. First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a virtue of the fact that he is merely implementing the recommendations of the National Curriculum Council, ignoring the fact that the debate is about the points at which he has departed from those recommendations. Secondly, he said, "Of course the Government are not stopping anybody doing anything. We are simply saying what is in the curriculum. If they want to teach something else, they can." The whole philosophy of a national curriculum is to ensure that some subjects are seen as essential, with the inevitable consequence that the others are regarded as relatively inessential. It does not help to say, "There is nothing to stop teachers teaching them." The whole purpose of the policy is to upgrade some subjects and, necessarily, to reduce the primacy of the others.
If the orders are approved, it will be possible for children to emerge from the education system with no knowledge of history after 1918, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. If it is possible for that to happen, with no incentives for teachers to concentrate on matters outside the curriculum, it is inevitable that it will happen. Children will emerge with no sense of their history. The Conservative party used to


claim to be the party of history—the party that emphasised our national identity. Winston Churchill never gave up saying that things came from a sense of history.
The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) listed some of the advantages of history. Let me add one other. History provides a sense of pride—of self-respect. I have seen that happen. When I was a child in the industrial black country, people were ashamed to say where they lived. They thought that they were personally downgraded by the landscape in which they lived. Thanks to the efforts of those who have brought to life our local history and have regarded it as part of our identity, local people are now proud of their history, traditions and dialect and of their grorty pudding. History is self-respect.
We are now saying, "People must learn about what happened a long time ago. They cannot learn about their immediate history." The Secretary of State faces two difficulties as a result of that approach. The first entails the purpose set out in his own document, which says:
Pupils should be taught to understand how the world in which they live has been shaped by developments in twentieth-century history.
If the essential instalment is missing from the account, how are pupils to understand how the world in which they live has been shaped? If the history of the middle east stops short of the six-day war or—if the Secretary of State relents—at the time when the Shah was still ruling Iran, how will pupils understand how the middle east, as we know it today, is still in existence?
The Secretary of State faces another difficulty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself raised a question about the nature of history. I do not believe that there is any better way to inculcate a sense of history than by placing it in the context of people whom children have seen and heard. Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman a parable.
I had a son who, in the fifth form, was required to do a historical project. He happend to select the history of the Labour party. He did a fair amount of research and, after he had got the project written and it was there in academic form, he asked me, "Could you introduce me to some of the people about whom I have been reading?" Some of them were Members of the House. We talked to George Strauss and John Parker. Then my son asked, "You couldn't get Manny Shinwell, could you?' In fear and trembling, I wrote to Manny Shinwell, who was then in another place—[Laughter.]—another other place. He was extremely kind. He wrote back, saying that he would be happy to see us but that he could not give us more than 20 minutes. We went to see him, and after the first hour and a half we had reached 1926. The octogenarian and the 15-year-old struck sparks off each other; they both came alive. The teaching staff were queuing up to read that project. It was not current affairs; it was history. It gave a sense of history. It did all the things that history is required to do.
On the other hand, the Secretary of State has placed himself on the side of those people—to whom he referred—who think that history is about the dead. Does he remember Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn saying:
The widow told me about Moses, and for a time I was in a sweat to find out all about him. But, bye and bye, she let on that he was dead, and after that I didn't want to hear any more, because I don't take no stock in dead folks.

The bridge between "Huckleberry Finn" and contemporary history for the kids of today is precisely what the Secretary of State is destroying. He wants to turn history into an affair of ghosts. He can bury history for the moment, but after the next election my right hon. Friend may disinter it. I warn the Secretary of State that history has a habit of taking its revenge.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: We have just heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), a very interesting speech illustrating the good sense of what my right hon. and learned Friend proposes. The entire speech of the right hon. and learned Member delighted me by underlining the fact that historical matters such as that about which his son was writing can still be written about. The right hon. and learned Gentleman misses the point entirely.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), I regret that history is not a core subject. I infinitely regret that pupils will be allowed to give it up at the age of 14. These are great misfortunes. However, on the central point that is the subject of this debate, I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that, when he was learning history, there were many gaps. The hon. Gentleman's experience is repeated all over the country. In the Palace of Westminster, I have met hundreds of children who know nothing at all about the Tudors or the Stuarts, nothing at all about those great formative centuries which saw the reformation and then the revolution that led to the ascendancy of the House of Commons. Those children were not taught about such things. Far too many history teachers concentrated on the recent past. However, we now have a disciplined framework. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I taught history. I tried to ensure that all my pupils left school with a reasonable knowledge of English history right through. That is terribly important.
Several hon. Members have referred to the need for a sense of perspective. One cannot have a sense of perspective or of history unless one has a reasonable knowledge of history. The purpose of the national curriculum is to ensure that all our children will have a reasonable knowledge of the salient facts of their nation's history, and some knowledge of the important facts of international history. Of course, they can know very little in depth, but they need a sense of perspective. We hope that they will strike sparks, and that many of them will pursue history not just academically but throughout their lives as a burning personal interest.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he discussed with me the question of the 20-year period. I told him that the order as originally drafted was wrong. In accepting that, he made a very good decision. We now have a sensible curriculum, which does not dictate or exclude, but makes sure that the experience of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will not be repeated. I refer to the undue concentration on the recent past, and the lack of regard for the more distant past.
Any decent history teacher will always draw comparisons and use analogies to try to excite interest. We cannot talk about the ambitions of Napoleon without talking about the ambitions of Hitler to conquer this


country. We cannot talk about the events in the middle east immediately after the first world war without talking about what has recently happened. We cannot talk about the history of Ireland in the 18th century without talking about what has happened since. We cannot talk about Catholic emancipation in 1829 without talking about the repercussions that are still being felt to this day. Any sensible history teacher will talk about these things.
We are merely saying that the lazy history teacher—there have been far too many of them—should not get away with merely reading yesterday's newspapers and trying to provoke a trivial political discussion. Unfortunately, that is far too often what has happened.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made a sensible move. I have talked to several historians over recent weeks, and they have told me that they felt deeply disturbed by the original draft order but feel happier about the amendments. Many of them regret that history is not a core subject. All of them regret, as I do, that history can be dropped at the age of 14. We should consider both matters again. I hope that we all regard the national curriculum as to a degree experimental. We must learn from it, at least in these first years. I hope that it will be amended and that, by the turn of the century, history will be a core subject and there will be no question of dropping it before the age of 16.
We have not made a bad beginning, and my right hon. and learned Friend is doing nothing iconoclastic. He is doing nothing stupid. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) made an excellent speech from the Opposition Back Benches. I have great respect for him. Unfortunately, his main themes were irrelevant in the context of the debate. All the matters to which he referred can still be taught and discussed in the classroom, and will be by intelligent and lively history teachers.
Tonight, we see a beginning. What my right hon. and learned Friend has done is sensible and justifiable. The debate has not produced the last word, because I am sure that we shall return to these matters. How good it is that the House is debating the teaching of history, which is the ultimate subject, and therefore the most important of all.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is ironic that Parliament should consider that it is worth spending only 37 minutes on history in terms of the national curriculum, and only 37 minutes on geography. If the issues are as important as some have suggested, the Government could surely have used parliamentary procedures to give us more time.
As an ex-geography teacher, I find unpalatable the attempt to impose a national curriculum. I believe that it will do great harm to what goes on in school. I know that it is far better to teach in school what we have experience of, based on our teaching skills, rather than to teach in the absence of background knowledge. I suggest that my geography lessons were interesting and exciting to pupils because I could teach them about things with which I was familiar and understood. I could insert that material into my teaching. From that I could teach the skills that were essential rather than the things that others thought important.
How many geography teachers throughout the country will be happy to throw away the materials that they have built up over the years and that have served them well in

their teaching? Can the Secretary of State make sufficient resources available to ensure that teachers in future can teach with the same enthusiasm when they deal with the new areas of the syllabus? Can he provide the slides, films and text books? Will there be money for fieldwork? I very much doubt whether that will be the case.
My final complaint is that the Secretary of State has opted too much for the idea that we should put places on maps instead of an understanding about them. People enjoy "spot the ball" at my Labour club. However, trying to place Birmingham in the right spot on a map is a pretty useless exercise. I recall marking such exercises. One mark was awarded if the pupil was within a certain radius of the correct spot and half a mark if he was a little further away. What does all that really mean? It is far more important for a pupil to have an idea of where Birmingham is in relation to—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp; c. (negative procedure)):—

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 289.

Division No. 130]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Allen, Graham
Fatchett, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Faulds, Andrew


Armstrong, Hilary
Fearn, Ronald


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flannery, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foster, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Foulkes, George


Beith, A. J.
Fraser, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fyfe, Maria


Benton, Joseph
Galloway, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Blair, Tony
George, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith
Gordon, Mildred


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buckley, George J.
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Hain, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Canavan, Dennis
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Ingram, Adam


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Leadbitter, Ted


Doran, Frank
Leighton, Ron


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lewis, Terry


Eadie, Alexander
Livsey, Richard


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)






Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rogers, Allan


Loyden, Eddie
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Rooney, Terence


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Rowlands, Ted


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Sheerman, Barry


McMaster, Gordon
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McWilliam, John
Short, Clare


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Straw, Jack


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Nellist, Dave
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Brien, William
Turner, Dennis


O'Hara, Edward
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Joan


Parry, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Wareing, Robert N.


Pendry, Tom
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Pike, Peter L.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Prescott, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wilson, Brian


Ouin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Worthington, Tony


Randall, Stuart
Wray, Jimmy


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Reid, Dr John



Richardson, Jo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, George
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Allason, Rupert
Brazier, Julian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amos, Alan
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arbuthnot, James
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Burns, Simon


Ashby, David
Butterfill, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Baldry, Tony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sydney


Batiste, Spencer
Churchill, Mr


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Colvin, Michael


Benyon, W.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, Rt Hon John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cormack, Patrick


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Curry, David


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Davis, David (Boothferry)





Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David


Dover, Den
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Eggar, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Favell, Tony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, John Dudley
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Madel, David


French, Douglas
Malins, Humfrey


Fry, Peter
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Iain


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Roger


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gregory, Conal
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Morrison, Sir Charles


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Grist, Ian
Moss, Malcolm


Ground, Patrick
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Harris, David
Page, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Paice, James


Hawkins, Christopher
Patnick, Irvine


Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayward, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Portillo, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, William (Corby)


Hill, James
Price, Sir David


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Holt, Richard
Redwood, John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Irvine, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jack, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jackson, Robert
Rost, Peter


Janman, Tim
Rowe, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shelton, Sir William






Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stokes, Sir John
Wiggin, Jerry


Sumberg, David
Wilkinson, John


Summerson, Hugo
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wood, Timothy


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thorne, Neil
Tellers for the Noes:


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. David Lightbown and


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 19 February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8745/90 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 6th March 1991 relating to sweeteners for use in foodstuffs; and supports the Government's intention to provide the maximum safeguard for consumers by limiting the use of sweeteners in food to the minimum amount necessary to fulfil the function intended and above all in accordance with the acceptable daily intake levels approved by the independent expert safety committees.—[Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting to-morrow, the Motions in the name of Mr. Francis Maude relating to Estimates and Supplementary Estimates 1991–92 (Class VIII, Vote 14) (Community Charge and rate rebate grants, emergency assistance to local authorities, non-domestic rates outturn payments, etc., England), (Class XV, Vote 22) (Rate rebate grants, transitional relief and community charge reduction grants, Scotland) and (Class XVI, Vote 11) (Rate rebate grants and community charge reduction grants, Wales) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and, if those proceedings have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put successively the Questions necessary to dispose of them.
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 1st May, if proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to Broadcasting, &amp;c., have not previously been disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock put the Question or Questions necessary to dispose of them, including the Questions on any Amendments to the said Motion which he may have selected.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day — Power Lines (North Yorkshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. William Hague: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of considerable concern to many of my constituents. I refer to the construction of overhead power lines in my constituency and neighbouring areas. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who is present to respond, to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), who will say a few words when I have said mine, and to others from neighbouring constituencies who are here to listen to the debate, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and for York (Mr. Gregory), and, for some reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden).

Mr. Gerald Bowden: For old time's sake.

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is here for old time's sake.
The immediate cause of the public disquiet and anger in my constituency is the proposal by the National Grid Company to construct new transmission lines running from Lackenby in Cleveland to Picton in north Yorkshire, and then south to Shipton near York. The proposals have been brought forward by the National Grid Company because of its obligations to link to the national system a new gas-fired power station at the ICI Wilton complex on Teesside, which received planning permission last November and is now under construction.
The power station project is an imaginative enterprise, undertaken privately, and I make no criticism of it. Equally, the National Grid Company is only discharging the duties that Parliament has laid upon it. The cause of our difficulty, and the reason for the debate, is that the construction of the power station and the lines to serve it have been treated for planning purposes as two separate events, with the result that the power station received planning permission without any apparent consideration being given to the environmental impact of the subsequent construction of 60 miles of pylons across a fine rural landscape.
My argument is that such disconnected procedures are an inadequate way to make such decisions, that it would be in the interests of the nation and of the National Grid Company to adopt better procedures, and that the failure to take account of the impact on north Yorkshire means that the Secretary of State must be especially vigilant and stringent in the environmental standards that he applies to the forthcoming application to build power lines across north Yorkshire.

Mr. John Greenway: The power lines will go through my hon. Friend's constituency and a considerable distance through mine. As well as the far-reaching consultations about this matter—that the National Grid Company, to its credit, has promised—should we not consider the need to lay power cable lines across the north of England, and why there was no public consultation about that when planning consent was granted for the power station in Cleveland?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, on which I shall touch later. I thank him for his intervention and support.
To make an analogy to what has happened on a more human scale, it is as if I were to propose to my hon. Friend the Minister that I should build a house on a plot adjacent to his home. The plot is well screened and out of site, he believes that I will be a good neighbour, he raises no objection, planning permission is duly given and I start to build my house. Then I say to him, "By the way, I need a driveway and the only place I can put it is through your front garden, because no one else will agree to have it." Surely he cannot object to my driveway. Everyone knows that a house has to have access. Well, everyone knows that a power station has to be linked to the national grid, but it was only after planning permission had been given that it became apparent in my constituency that a £2 million project would be needed and that most of it would pass down the vale of York.
The report of the chief planning officer of North Yorkshire county council, to be considered by the council planning committee tomorrow, states the problem clearly, saying:
the County Council now finds itself in the position of having to react to proposals for major new environmentally intrusive transmission facilities running across a large section of the country, put forward as a direct result of an earlier decision over which it had no influence. Clearly, it is most unsatisfactory that permission for such a major expansion of power facilities can be granted without all the implications, including those for adjoining areas, being considered. Members may feel that this is a national issue of principle.
Well might it think so.
The European Community directive on environmental assessment of 1985, under article 3 and annexe III, requires an environmental impact assessment to identify, describe and assess the direct, indirect and secondary effects of a project on the environment. That information has to be submitted to the competent authority—in this case the Secretary of State—before a decision on consent is taken. In this case, it clearly was not.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England has already written to the European Commission to point out the inconsistency between the EC directive, which says that a project should be considered in the round, and the evident policy in this country, which is to consider each bit piecemeal—a process which makes it difficult to object to the next relevant piece.
My hon. Friend the Minister might think that my constituents are just having an attack of NIMBY—not in my backyard. They are, of course, as entitled to be nimbies as anyone else, especially as they go to great lengths to preserve the highly attractive appearance of the outstanding countryside in which they live. However, this case raises wider issues. What if, to take an extreme case, new power stations were built in the north of Scotland or, if we want to be really extreme, in the Orkneys or Shetlands? Would the National Grid Company have to link them to the national network? What if there had been no gap between the two Yorkshire national parks, and the proposed lines had to run through a national park, without the Secretary of State having considered that fact when giving planning permission for a new station? That is an utterly inadequate way to make decisions of such importance in a country that is so crowded and so sensitive to the need to preserve its most magnificent countryside.
We shall be doing the electricity industry no favours if we allow decisions to be made in such a way. Future power stations will encounter greater public opposition if the wider environmental consequences are not clarified, and a bad name will be given to the privatisation of the industry, which in every other respect I, for one—along with my hon. Friends who are present tonight—emphatically support.
Clearly, in this case, the damage has now partly been done. The National Grid Company must connect the station to the grid, and provide for the distribution of the electricity that it will generate. I stress that the company's officials are discharging their own responsibilities with considerable care, and are taking pains to consult local people about the precise routes to be taken. My quarrel is not with them, but with the procedures that have put them in such a position.
The Department of Energy now has two specific responsibilities to the residents of north Yorkshire, which it must fulfil before it gives approval to any proposed power lines—a procedure that is much more likely to require public inquiries as a result of what has happened. First, it should be absolutely sure before it gives approval that the new lines are needed—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale—and that the intended capacity to transmit from north to south is really necessary. Secondly, it should insist that the environmental impact of the power lines is minimised by every possible means.
Let me expand on each of these points. First, there is much suspicion that the proposed power lines will have a capacity far beyond that required to cater for the one new power station so far approved. Up to four additional power stations in the seaside area are now mooted in some quarters. The national grid might sensibly argue that we must provide for possible future transmissions, but do we really want so many additional power stations in the north of England when the excess of demand is in the south?
Some local researchers believe that the national grid could cope with the output of the one power station so far approved by upgrading only the more northerly of two lines linking Lackenby with the rest of the grid. Of two proposed 400 kV lines, the Salt Holme to Norton line is much shorter, will run on the same route as the existing 275 kV line and will have much less environmental impact than the proposed 400 kV line from Lackenby to Picton and thence to Shipton, which will run through outstanding open countryside.
No one should think that, however this more southerly route is drawn up, its environmental consequences will be anything other than severe. As the county planning officer puts it:
There would be major environmental consequences arising from all route options, due both to the intrusive nature of the transmission facilities themselves and to the sensitivity of the whole area through which they must pass. It is impossible to screen the 'supergrid' and there is limited scope for mitigating measures. Difficulties are considered to be especially acute in the section east of Northallerton and Thirsk where all options either pass very close to the boundary of the North York Moors National Park or would need to traverse the open exposed Bullamoor ridge or the relatively unspoilt Cod beck and Sigston Valley. None of the options are considered to be acceptable in this vicinity.
That is the report that the county council will consider tomorrow morning.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister realises that all the route options for the Picton to Shipton line run

almost along the edge of the North York Moors national park. It has recently been proposed that the so-called east coast motorway should also run through that area. The people who live there are, not surprisingly, beginning to feel fed up with being regarded as a natural highway for everything that wants to move between north and south, especially as their area is only marginally less attractive, or perhaps no less attractive, than the national park area, which starts at the top of the hill. It is time that we got away from the notion that everything that is just inside a national park is sacrosanct, while everything just outside it is fair game for motorways and pylons. We are in danger of creating a severe penalty for living just outside a national park, in which case I shall soon be asking for an Adjournment debate on expanding the boundaries of the national parks.

Mr. John Greenway: It is the same with the green belts.

Mr. Hague: It is indeed.
That aside, let us assume that my hon. Friend the Minister feels, as I do, that the environmental consequences of what has been agreed to will be serious. Let us also assume that, having investigated to the full the need for the additional lines on the route through north Yorkshire, he finds that they are definitely necessary. Let us assume further that he considers shorter routes across the national park itself to be unacceptable. I am sure that they would be unacceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. I hope that at the end of all these deliberations he will do his utmost to ensure that every possible step is taken to minimise the impact on my constituents and their environment.
The proposed pylons have a design life of 80 years. We are talking about something with which our grandchildren—even mine—will have to live. I should not like to be in the shoes of the electricity industry if it is discovered 10 years from now that electro-magnetic fields from power lines have a serious effect on human health. I should not like to be in the shoes of the Department of Energy if it is discovered five years from now that there is a cheap and efficient way to place lengthy power lines underground.
National Grid officials are very wary—perhaps they are right to be—of suggestions that parts of the lines should go underground. They warn of the cost, the digging up of a great deal of land and of the difficulties of maintaining lines that have been buried. Other people, who also know a great deal about the industry, particularly Professor Scott who lives in our area, have advised me that this need no longer be the case, or that soon it need no longer be the case, and that recent technological developments being pioneered on the continent make substantial lengths of underground power lines a realistic possibility. I do not have the information or the expertise to evaluate such claims, but I hope that my hon. Friend's Department is aware of these developments and that, if not, it will take the trouble to find out about them.
Failing that possibility, I am also given to understand that new and shorter pylons are being developed, designed with the same work load in mind but 11m shorter than the current standard 440kV pylon. Other ideas involve more slender steel poles that I understand could be produced in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South. Perhaps a combination of all these methods could be used in north Yorkshire to minimise the


damage to our landscape—a landscape that is enjoyed each year not only by tens of thousands of local people but by an even greater number of visitors.
I shall send to my hon. Friend the Minister some of the deeply troubled letters that I have received from constituents—from the owner of a well-used private airfield near the village of Bagley, where the operation of aircraft may become severely restricted or impossible, to the owner of a herd of pedigree holstein-friesians, who is likely to have 400kV lines running through the middle of his farm, and to a large number of members of the public who simply appreciate the countryside around them.
It is not good enough that the decision on these matters should have been reduced to recognising a virtual fait accompli because of inadequate and unsatisfactory planning procedures. My constituents have a legitimate grievance, and it must be addressed tonight.

Mr. Richard Holt: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Mr. Hague) for allowing me a few moments of his precious Adjournment debate. As the power lines projected by National Grid go through my constituency before they reach my hon. Friend's, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak in the debate.
A few years ago the Environment Select Committee, of which I am a member, looked into the question of the acid rain produced by power stations. When worthy, decent and nice people built them all those years ago, they felt, quite rightly, that if the chimneys were high enough they would have no detrimental effect. Modern technology has proved that that is not true. That is why a great deal of money is now being spent on providing power station filters and making them cleaner. As yet, there is no evidence one way or the other that electro-magnetic force from the power lines has any detrimental effect on human health. However, these will be bigger and stronger power lines than those that were used in the past.
I cannot help but feel that it may not be too long before we discover that there are detrimental effects. Everybody will then throw up their hands in horror and say, "Why on earth didn't somebody look into this and think about it at the right time?"
Most of my constituents would opt for the proposal that the power lines should be placed underground. I am told that there are technical reasons why that does not affect the electro-magnetic field. That may be. Nevertheless, it is the option that we ought to be considering for the future. As my hon. Friend said, these power lines are built not just for now but for a long way into the future. As yet it has not been proved that such powerful cables are needed.
I am told that it may be technically difficult to put everything underground, yet we have electricity from France which travels not merely underground but under the sea. We have the technical capacity, but we do not have the will. I am told that there is no will to do that because it would prove too expensive—it would be 16 or 20 times dearer. That depends on the accountant. The accountant could spread the capital expenditure over 60 years instead of the proposed 40 years, or even longer if the life of the equipment is 80 years. Why should our part of the

north-east bear the entire burden of the national grid? Why should the rest of the country not pay for some of it? The on-costs over 80 years for every unit of current would be about 0·000001p. That would not materially affect people's bills around the country.
I agree with my hon. Friend about planning applications. Had we known about the present problems, we might have suggested that instead of building the power station on ICI's ground—because of a quirk of this place, ICI can award itself planning permission under an obscure 1948 Act—we should run the gas in pipelines down to the midlands where the electricity was required. The power stations could have been built there instead of spoiling the beautiful north Yovkshire moors and dales in my constituency.
Our constituents in the north-east have nuclear power stations and four or five applications for additional toxic waste burners; now we have another burden to bear. It is unnecessary. The power lines could go underground. The cost factor does not enter into the argument. If it is feasible to bring electricity from France under the sea, it must be feasible to run it under the ground. I am told that it would make some of the ground sterile. Perhaps it would, but I am sure that local people would prefer that.
Why do not sewers run on the surface? We bury them because they are unsightly. They do not need to be on the surface and they can provide an adequate service underground. The same could apply to power lines if there was a will.
There is great resistance to the proposals, and the Government would be well advised to listen to those of us who have spoken from the Conservative Back Benches tonight. We are speaking as friends. We do not want to get into a fight with the Government or National Grid. We want to work something out. We do not believe the arguments that we need the power lines to provide sufficient capacity for the future or that they could not be buried. The arguments about costs do not hold water.
I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few comments to the debate. I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply. I can tell him that it does not represent the beginning and end of the story; it is merely the opening shots.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on securing the debate and on the forceful and effective way in which he has represented the concerns of his constituents. I know the part of the world that he represents. I used to live in north Yorkshire, so I am aware of the beauty of some of the scenery to which he has referred.
The background to the debate is set by the statutory responsibilities of the National Grid Company. It has obligations under the Electricity Act 1989 through its transmission licence, first, to offer terms for connection within 90 days to prospective connections to the grid, and if such terms are accepted NGC must provide connections to its system. Secondly, it must carry out any necessary extension or reinforcement work resulting from that connection.
My hon. Friend referred to the transmission links for the ICI-Enron Teesside plant. My right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State has not received an application from the National Grid Company for consent to construct or reconstruct overhead power lines in north Yorkshire. Consent was granted in December for two short stretches of 275 kV overhead line, linking the new Enron scheme with the Lackenby sub-station. Those are the only two lines solely related to the Enron project. The National Grid Company is planning further line reinforcements in the area, which have been the main subject of this evening's debate.
It would be helpful if I mentioned general procedures. If and when applications for overhead line work in north Yorkshire are received, they will be fully and carefully considered by my Department. The regulations enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to call for an environmental statement to be submitted. The National Grid Company has undertaken to provide an environmental statement for all major new transmission lines. The project must be advertised and a period allowed for representations to my right hon. Friend.
If any of the relevant planning authorities objects to the proposal and its objections cannot be met by modifying it, my right hon. Friend is obliged to arrange a public inquiry. Even if the relevant planning authorities do not object, my right hon. Friend may still arrange a public inquiry in the light of other objections received. He will decide that on the individual merits of the case.
My right hon. Friend—my hon. Friend; I am anticipating events—the Member for Richmond and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked whether a transmission application should be considered when consent for a new power station is granted. The Electricity and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1990, which implement the relevant EC directive, provide that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shall not grant consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 unless he has first taken environmental information into consideration. Environmental information in this context means the environmental statement submitted by the applicant and any representations made about the likely effects of the proposed development.
Teesside Power's environmental statement referred to the need for a link with, and uprating of, the grid, but those matters were not its responsibility and it could not be expected to provide detailed information on them.
The National Grid Company's programme of strengthening the grid in the north—this is an important point in answer to my hon. Friends—is not solely to meet the needs of Teesside power station but to meet other neeeds such as the upgrading of the Anglo-Scottish interconnector.
It would not have been appropriate, therefore, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have required Teesside Power to provide environmental information that only another developer—the National Grid Company—could provide. When applications for new transmission lines through north Yorkshire are made, an environmental

statement will be provided and the environmental assessment procedure, as required by the regulations, will be carried out.
It must be borne in mind that delay in considering power station applications is contrary to the Government's expressed intention of reaching timely decisions. If all applications had to take into account all the possible considerations and consequences, no decision could be timely. It is therefore appropriate for applications to be considered on individual merit if and when they are made.
My hon. Friends referred to the speed with which the line may have to be constructed. The grid system must adapt to meet developments. Now that the National Grid Company is in the private sector, I hope that it will respond in a businesslike way to opportunities and its statutory responsibilities. I assure my hon. Friends that adequate time remains for all proper procedures to be carried out. The National Grid Company's statutory responsibilities to the community and the environment in developing line routes is in no way diminished. There is also the safeguard that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will pick up any points of concern when considering applications.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) asked about undergrounding lines. As he is aware, undergrounding lines is generally considerably more expensive than constructing lines overhead. I disagree with his statement that this is not an important matter. Undergrounding lines can cost between 10 and 15 times as much as constructing the equivalent length of overhead line, which must be an important consideration. It also takes longer and it is more expensive to locate and rectify faults if they involve underground cable.
It should not be thought that undergrounding lines in rural areas is necessarily without environmental impact. No development is permitted over a cable once it is laid. The necessary trench work, particularly at sensitive ecological and archaeological sites, is not without its environmental problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh also mentioned health effects. Of course the Government know about them, but at present they have not been proven. We have an open mind about any possible health risks. Further work is proceeding to find out the effects, but at present we can reach no conclusion and there is no good reason for not proceeding with strengthening the grid system.
I take my hon. Friend's points seriously. The National Grid Company is still formulating its proposals and consulting. I shall ensure that my hon. Friends' comments are drawn to its attention. When the company applies to my Department, I shall ensure that they are immediately informed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock